 The President of the United States has nearly unlimited power to pardon or commute the sentences of those accused or convicted of federal crimes. This power is embedded in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the president has the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment”. The framers of the Constitution thought that fear of impeachment, the court of public opinion, or the integrity of the person holding the highest office in the land, would keep any abuses in check. Unfortunately, this has proven not to be the case. The self-serving pardons granted by President Trump in the closing hours of his administration, demand that reforms be explored.  Exercise of the Presidential Pardon: The Constitution provides no standards or guidelines on the use of the presidential pardon, and therefore it can be used for any reason, or no reason. Pardons were deemed necessary to address injustices, at a time when many crimes were punishable by death and haste was of the essence. As Alexander Hamilton argues in Federalist No. 74 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80), the purpose of the pardon power is to temper justice with mercy, and in order to facilitate reconciliation which is sometimes needed to restore the tranquility of the commonwealth. Examples of this include pardons granted by Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson to Confederate Soldiers, and amnesty granted by Jimmy Carter to Vietnam-era draft evaders.
An 1866 Supreme Court ruling affirmed that the presidential pardon “extends to every offence known to law, and may be exercised at anytime after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgement”. This was how President Ford was able to grant Richard Nixon a full, free, and absolute pardon for all offenses against the United States even before he was charged with any.  It is important to note that presidential pardons only exonerate federal crimes. It can not be used to pardon state or local offenses, and it cannot be used to overturn civil judgments. The president does not have the power to pardon defendants in an impeachment trial or anyone who has been impeached. The pardon may be granted even before legal proceedings have begun, but pardons may not be granted for crimes that have not yet been committed.  Can Presidents Pardon Themselves? The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit it, and no president has tried. But as James Madison wrote, “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity”. This is a longstanding common-law principle, and many legal experts agree that a self-pardon would not stand up to judicial scrutiny. Richard Nixon may have sought to pardon himself if not for his Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that a president could not pardon himself. If a president attempted a self-pardon, the matter would most certainly end up in the Supreme Court.  Office of the Pardon Attorney: The Office of the Pardon Attorney, within the Department of Justice (DOJ), was established approximately 125 years ago to assist the president in the exercise of executive clemency. Executive clemency may take several forms. These include full pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, or reprieve. Requests for executive clemency are directed to the Pardon Attorney for review, investigation, and preparation of the DOJ’s recommendation to the president. The Office of the Pardon Attorney has established procedures and standards for considering pardon petitions ( https://www.justice.gov/pardon).  But the president is not required to follow their recommendations and retains full pardon authority. In fact, President Trump has mostly bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney when considering pardon petitions. Instead, petitioners have approached the White House directly through advisor Jared Kushner, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, White House Council Pat Cipollone, or the president himself.  Pardons as Tools of Justice or Personal Gain? President Trump was not the first, and he certainly won’t be the last president to use the executive clemency system to his own advantage. Under Donald Trump, the executive clemency system has been dominated by inside access, and used to serve his personal goals and whims. Analysis by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith found that 86 of Donald Trump’s first 94 pardons were “aberrant”’; meaning that they circumvented the normal review process and benefitted celebrities, or people with political or family ties to the president (https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-circumvention-justice-department-clemency-process). In 2020, Donald Trump granted clemency to loyal associates Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Rodger Stone. Donald Trump also pardoned Jared Kushner’s father, a convicted criminal, as well as four Blackwater security guards convicted of murdering civilians in Iraq. These individuals were not wrongly convicted, showed little contrition or remorse for their crimes, and do not serve the public good by being pardoned. The pardon system was not established to foster cronyism and to subvert the rule of law. But this seems to be the case in these instances.  The biggest abuse of the system is the large number of pardons issued in the final hours of a presidency, leaving little time for scrutiny. This is exemplified by Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich who was indicted for tax evasion and racketeering. Rich and his wife were large donors to Hilary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to the Clinton Library Foundation. The fact that Rich was a fugitive from law living overseas, did not prevent him from getting a “get out of jail free” card.  On his final day in office, President Trump pardoned 74 people and commuted the sentences of 70 others. I’ll let you decide how many of these meet the Constitution’s intent of the pardon clause. Here is a full list of the 144 people receiving clemency: (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/full-list-trump-s-last-minute-pardons-commuted-sentences-n1254806). Many of these last-minute pardons are rotten to the core, but perfectly legal. So, what can be done about it? Nothing, without some type of reform.  Possible Reforms: If you assume, as Alexander Hamilton did, that all presidents would show “prudence and good sense” in the exercise of the pardon authority, then nothing needs to be done. But as recent history has shown, not all presidents are the principled gentlemen that the framers of the Constitution had envisioned. Here are a few suggestions for reforms that would better align the president’s pardon authority with how it was originally intended:
The president’s pardon authority was not intended to excuse injustice, but to do justice. The Constitution gives the president nearly unfettered authority to issue pardons. There is very little transparency in the process, and many of the most questionable pardons occur in a president’s final hours in office. It is time to reform the pardon system and restore it to the purpose for which it was intended. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American
2 Comments
 A nation’s capital comes under violent assault by an unruly mob, incited by a despotic leader intent on holding onto power despite having lost a free and fair election. Just another news report from Venezuela, Belarus, or Kazakhstan? No! I’m talking about what took place at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.
The U.S. Capitol building was attacked by a mob of Donald Trump supporters to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. The assault on the heart of our democracy was an insurrection, a violent uprising against an established government. These events did not erupt spontaneously. They have been brewing since the November 3rd election, fed by the lies and vitriol of a man who would not accept defeat. In an act of sedition, President Donald Trump implored his supporters not to accept the results of the election, and incited them by perpetrating the lie that the election was stolen from him. Just a short time before a joint session of Congress assembled to certify the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Donald Trump addressed his supporters near the White House at the “Save America” rally. Here are some of the president’s own words: “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’ve done and what they are doing. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about.” In his hour and thirteen-minute speech to his followers, Trump laid out his grievances and a litany of lies about how the election was stolen from him. He implored Vice President Pence not to certify the election, and told his followers to walk to the Capitol once his speech was over, with these words: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and count the electors who have been lawfully slated”. Within two hours, Trump’s supporters had broken into the Capitol building, sending members of both chambers fleeing for safety, and desecrating the seat of America’s democracy. When the mayhem was over, at least two people were dead and dozens were injured. This was not a protest, it was an unprecedented assault on our democracy, and a glimpse at how a constitutionally formed government can fall. The only winners in this unholy drama are the other despotic leaders from around the world who were undoubtedly cheering Trump on. This stain on America democracy certainly sent champagne corks flying in the government chambers of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Donald Trump is the most dangerous man in America, and a grave threat to our democracy. The damage he has done to this country, both domestically and internationally, is incalculable. He is an enemy of free and fair elections, the institutions of democracy, and common decency. He should be removed from office swiftly, before he can do any more damage. Vice President Pence should do the right thing, and regain his credibility by invoking the 25th Amendment to have the president removed from office. Short of that, the Congress should move immediately to have the president impeached. There is time for expedited impeachment proceedings both in the House and Senate. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. I advocate for impeachment. The 25th Amendment would not preclude the president from seeking office again, but impeachment can. It would be in the GOP’s self-interest to push for this option. If Donald Trump is not banned from running for president again, he will be a thorn in their side for years to come, and the party will become disastrously divided. Donald Trump announced today that he will not be attending the inauguration of Joe Biden. Just as well, he will probably be in exile in Russia or North Korea by then (only half joking). I wish I could say that this is the end of a sorry chapter in American history, but the drama will continue until Donald Trump is dealt with. Lost in all the drama of the week is the fact that the Democrats won both Senate runoff elections in Georgia. The Democrats will soon be the majority in the Senate. Republicans blame the erratic behavior of Donald Trump for the defeat. But as the proverb says, “You live by the sword, you die by the sword”. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  The new year is finally here, and no one wants to put 2020 in the rearview mirror more than I do. The beginning of a new year is a time to reflect, take stock, and move forward with the hope that the year ahead will be better than the last. Much of what made 2020 challenging, (I’m being kind), will follow us into the new year. The coronavirus pandemic cast a dark shadow on much of 2020, and its impact will be felt for much, if not all, of 2021. Politics also dominated 2020. The hyper-partisanship continues, and we start the year with a very busy political calendar which will set the stage for 2021. This blog post is a brief look at what’s on my radar, and my wishes for 2021.  Political Calendar January: January 3, 2021: The start of the 117th United States Congress. On the Senate side, new Senators will be sworn in and new rules adopted. In the House of Representatives, newly elected and re-elected members will be sworn in, and the Speaker of the House will be elected. January 5, 2021: Two Georgian Senate runoff elections are being held. The results will determine which party controls the Senate. The seats are currently held by GOP incumbents Kelly Loeffler and David Purdue. They are being challenged by Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, respectively. January 6, 2021: Congress will gather in joint session to certify the electoral votes for president and vice president of the United States. Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the proceedings, and he will open the certificates of the electoral votes of each state and the District of Columbia. Once opened, each certificate is read aloud and the vice president calls for any objections, if any. The objection must be in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one House member. If an objection is raised, the joint session is suspended and each house meets separately to debate and vote on the objection. If the objection fails, the votes are counted and the joint session of congress continues to count the electoral votes of the remaining states. Objections are rare, and the certification of the electoral votes is typically quick and uneventful. But the 2020 presidential election was anything but typical, and objections will be raised in a last-ditch effort to overturn the election in Donald Trump’s favor. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) and Congressman Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) plan to raise one or more objections due to what they claim are voting irregularities in certain states. Several other Republican members of Congress will raise their objections as well. It could be a long day. But this is all just political theater. The Democratic held House will never vote to uphold the objections, and several Republican Senators have no intention of objecting to any of the certified electoral college votes. The only good that will come out of this affront to our democracy is that it will force Republicans in Congress to publicly acknowledge their support for either Donald Trump or the electoral process. January 20, 2021: Joe Biden will be sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, and Kamala Harris will be the first woman (of any color) to become vice president. Due to COVID-19, the inauguration will probably be a subdued affair, with most of the festivities occurring virtually. The only real question now is whether or not Donald Trump will be in attendance. I hope that he is. Not because I want to give him any more TV time, but for the sake of the country. Donald Trump’s presence will maintain our country’s tradition of a smooth transition of power, and signal to his supporters that Joe Biden is the legitimate president. I just hope, for this one day at least, Donald Trump can keep his ego in check and put the country ahead of his self-interests.  Other Things on My Radar for the Year Ahead: Coronavirus Pandemic: Unfortunately, the pandemic will dominate our lives for at least another year. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines provide hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. By the 2nd half of the year there should be additional COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the U.S. from Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Novavax. But the real issue to keep an eye on is the distribution and administration of the vaccines, in the U.S. and around the world. As we have witnessed over the past few weeks, it is a tall order to get the vaccines to where they are needed, and then getting them into the arms of people. Our healthcare system is exhausted by the hundreds of thousands of COVID patients being treated, and the Public Health System is doing all it can to keep up with testing and contact tracing. The federal government is going to have to step up in a big way if the vaccination program is going to succeed. The system also needs to keep an eye on the new variants of the virus that are currently in the population, and to convince enough people to get the vaccine in order to achieve herd immunity. What Donald Trump Does Next: I don’t think that Donald Trump is going into quiet retirement at Mar-a-Lago. He will continue to wield considerable influence in the Republican Party. The question is, what role will he take (or make for himself)? Will Donald Trump be a king maker, an elder statesman, or something more? I think he will launch his 2024 presidential campaign on January 20, 2021. Preparing for the Next Pandemic: Let’s face it, our response to the current pandemic was not good. We have no excuse not to be ready for the next pandemic, which will arrive sooner rather than later. The world has learned a lot about what has worked and what hasn’t during the current pandemic. The United States has a lot of work to do to put the systems and best practices into place, and to build critical supply chains. Student Loan Forgiveness: I don’t think that the Democrats will win back the Senate this year, so not much will be done on student loan forgiveness. Nonetheless, this is an important subject that needs careful consideration. Removing or Modifying the Presidential Pardon: No one is above the law, except the President who has the authority to grant pardons for offenses committed against the United States. President Trump’s recent pardons of convicted criminals (as well as questionable pardons made by other presidents), makes this a topic for serious discussion. Medicare for All: Most people agree that the healthcare system in the United States is broken, and the massive amount of money it sucks from the economy is unsustainable. There is no easy fix, and the politics surrounding it seem insurmountable. But I think that Medicare for All is a step in the right direction and needs to be pushed forward. Gun Control: With Republicans in control of the Senate this is probably a nonstarter. But you can’t convince me that assault style weapons, armor piercing bullets, and high-capacity magazines are guaranteed rights under the Constitution.  Wishes for the New Year:
Even though 2021 brings many challenges, I remain hopeful for the new year. The new administration will bring competent leadership to Washington D.C. The availability of COVID-19 vaccines and the resiliency of the American people, give me hope that when we look back on 2021 there will be a lot to celebrate. Happy New Year! If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American   Joy to the world, the vaccines have come. Let earth begin to heal. Let's thank those who delivered them; let every arm prepare for one; and heaven and nature sing, and heaven and nature sing, and heaven and heaven, and nature sing. Is this a Christmas miracle? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. This is still 2020 after all, and we have a long road ahead. The two COVID-19 vaccines currently in limited distribution were developed in record time, but the development of the technologies behind the vaccines took decades. Let’s look at the two vaccines currently being distributed and what to expect in the coming months.  Operation Warp Speed (OWS): A public-private partnership initiated by the U.S. government to facilitate and accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics (https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html). This is an interagency program spearheaded by the Department of Health and Human Services. The main goal of this program is to produce and deliver 300 million doses of safe and effective vaccines, with the initial doses available by 2021. So far so good. The Chief Operating Officer of the program is General Gustave Perna, and the Chief Scientific Advisor is Moncef Slaoui.  In August, OWS chose six companies to receive funding in order to expedite development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines. These companies are Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Astra Zeneca/University of Oxford, Novavax, Merck, and Sanofi/GlaxoSmith Kline. Pfizer/BioNTech did not receive any direct funding from OWS, but has agreed to supply vaccines.  Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: This vaccine was given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA on December 11, 2020. This is not the same as a full FDA approval, but it allows the vaccine to be used because there is sufficient evidence to show that its potential benefits outweigh its risks. Nearly 3 million doses of vaccine were delivered over the last ten days to 636 sites across the U.S. An additional 3 million doses will be delivered over the next few weeks to complete the required two dose regimen. Twenty to thirty million doses will be delivered each month in the first quarter of 2021. The first vaccines began to be administered to frontline healthcare workers on December 14, 2020. The vaccine was developed in Germany by BioNTech using mRNA technology (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html). BioNTech has partnered with Pfizer to help fund, manufacture, and distribute the vaccine. OWS has contracted with Pfizer to purchase 100 million doses of the vaccine for $1.95 billion. Pfizer will produce about 1.3 billion doses of the vaccine in 2021 to be distributed around the world. The U.S. government is currently negotiating with Pfizer for an additional 100 million doses of vaccine, but Pfizer lacks the required raw materials. The government is considering using the Defense Production Act to speed up production of the needed materials. In an interview with CNBC, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said he would welcome the U.S. government’s help in procuring needed materials in order to increase production of the vaccine. This just in: Today (12/23), Pfizer and BioNTech have signed a $2 billion agreement with the U.S. government for the purchase of an additional 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine. At least 70 million doses will be delivered by June 30, 2020, and the remaining 30 millions doses will be delivered no later than July 31, 2020. What You Need to Know About the Pfizer Vaccine:
You can find more information on the Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine at: (https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download).  Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine: This vaccine was given Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA on December 18, 2020. The FDA stated that its analysis “supported a favorable profile”, and confirmed Moderna’s earlier assessment that its vaccine was 94.1% effective. Administration of this vaccine began on December 21, 2020. The Moderna vaccine is roughly equivalent to the Pfizer vaccine, both of which use synthetic messenger RNA technology. Moderna is a small biotech company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the vaccine is the first product it has brought to market. Moderna will rely on contract manufacturers, such as Catalent Biologics in Indiana, to package and distribute their product. They plan to produce 500 million doses in 2021. Unlike Pfizer, Moderna has worked closely with Operation Warp Speed. The vaccine was developed in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, under-written by the government. Last summer the government signed a contract to purchase 100 million doses of the vaccine to be delivered in the first quarter of 2021. Earlier this month the government signed another agreement to purchase an additional 100 million doses to be delivered by the end of the 2nd quarter. This brings the government’s investment in the Moderna vaccine to $4.1 billion. What You Need to Know About the Moderna Vaccine:
You can find more information on the Emergency Use Authorization of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine at: (https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/). Other COVID-19 Vaccines on the Horizon in the U.S.:
 Vaccine Distribution: Operation Warp Speed is coordinating distribution of all vaccines. It is allocating vaccines according to each state’s population. The CDC has established guidelines to aid the states in prioritizing the limited supply of vaccines. The individual states have the final say on how the vaccines will be distributed, but most states will follow the CDC guidelines. The highest priority (Phase 1a) will be frontline healthcare workers and older people and staff in residential care homes. The CDC just released new guidelines for people in the next priority group (Phase 1b). This group includes people 75 and older, and frontline workers in “essential” jobs. These essential workers include teachers, emergency workers, and people who work in grocery stores, prisons, food processing plants, and public transportation. It will probably take most of the 1st quarter of 2021 to vaccinate this group of people, assuming no supply disruptions. The next group (Phase 1c) will be people aged 65-74, and younger people with high- risk health conditions. Even if we wanted to vaccinate everyone sooner, the supply just isn’t there. Phase I alone will use most of the vaccines currently contracted for through Operation Warp Speed. The country will need at least one more approved vaccine to get all of the general public vaccinated by the end of the summer. The National Governors Association and Duke University have developed a website to help navigate the vaccine distribution across the country. For your state’s specific plan follow this link: (https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/news/covid-19-vaccination-plans-state). The CDC has established the “Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care” to offer onsite COVID-19 vaccination services for residents and staff of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The participating pharmacies include CVS, Walgreens, and Managed Health Care Associates.  How Much Will the Vaccine Cost?: The federal government (tax payers) is paying for the vaccine. Healthcare providers may charge an administration fee, but in most cases this will be covered by medical insurance.  Will Vaccination be Mandatory?: At this time vaccination is voluntary. It would be legally questionable to mandate vaccination with a product that has not received full FDA approval. But it is likely that there will be travel restrictions put in place requiring people to be vaccinated before flying or entering certain foreign countries. Will the Vaccines be Effective Against New Virus Variants: According to HHS officials and reports from Pfizer and Moderna, there is a high level of confidence that existing vaccines will be effective against new COVID variants, such as the one in the United Kingdom(UK). Moderna and Pfizer will conduct tests on the UK variant in the coming weeks to make certain that their vaccines are effective. Challenges Remain:
 Vigilance and Patience: It will take most of 2021 to get the majority of the eligible people in the U.S. vaccinated against COVID-19. This is a massive effort and hiccups are bound to happen. We all just need to be patient. While we wait for herd immunity to be achieved, which could be many months to years away, we need to continue to protect ourselves, our families, and communities against the virus. This means that mask wearing, social distancing, and hand sanitation are as important as ever. Even after people become vaccinated, they may still shed the virus, so we must remain vigilant. New information about the coronavirus, COVID-19, and vaccines is coming out daily, so stay informed. The vaccines currently available, and those in development, give us hope for 2021. The efforts behind these vaccines demonstrate what can be accomplished when thousands of people in the public and private sectors come together in common cause for the betterment of humanity. The true Christmas miracle would be if this becomes a trend, and people come together to solve intractable problems like homelessness, poverty, hunger, racial injustice, the failed healthcare system, etc., etc., etc. One can only wish; and here’s wishing you a Merry Christmas.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  For all intents and purposes the 2020 presidential election is finally over. The Electoral College met on December 14th in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and cast their electoral votes. The Electoral College has spoken and the winner of the 2020 presidential election is (drum roll please), Joe Biden! It was a very contentious election, and President Trump and his allies have tried every legal maneuver possible to have the election results overturned. But the numbers don’t lie. Here is the election scorecard, which even the most hardened partisan cannot overlook: 2020 Presidential Election Score Card Votes/Challenges Trump Biden Popular Vote 74,223,753 (46.9%) 81,283,495 (51.4%) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recounts in Wisconsin and Georgia √ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lower Courts Lawsuits (50+) √ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court Rulings (2) √ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electoral College Votes 232 306 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Winner √ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even before all of the votes from the November 3rd election were tallied, the President’s campaign and his allies, began filing over 50 lawsuits in various jurisdictions. The lawsuits contested the election outcome due to alleged fraud or voting irregularities. Some of these lawsuits are still pending, but the majority were thrown out or decided in Joe Biden’s favor due to lack of evidence. The first Supreme Court challenge, to reverse the election results in Pennsylvania, was denied due to lack of merit. The second Supreme Court challenge, filed by the Texan Attorney General, was denied due to lack of standing (he didn’t have the legal right to sue other states over their election laws). Much to the chagrin of President Trump, the separation of powers is still working. Here is a reference to all of the legal challenges: https://www.9and10news.com/2020/12/10/status-of-election-related-legal-challenges/. The partial recount in Wisconsin and the full hand recount in Georgia, both went in Joe Biden’s favor.  On the floor of the Senate today, Leader Mitch McConnel acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College. He went on to congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris on their victory. On January 6, 2021 Congress will meet in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winner of the presidential election. For the sake of the country, let’s hope that Donald Trump and his millions of admirers accept the outcome of the election so that we can work together on the challenges ahead.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  On November 25, 2020, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a case over COVID-19 restrictions put in place by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The recent appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett has given the court a conservative majority, so the ruling should not be surprising. Is this ruling a shadow of things to come for the high court or just a one-off event? Let’s take a closer look.  I am not a lawyer. The extent of my legal training is a few graduate level courses in business and tax law. When I am confronted with a constitutional issue that I am not familiar with I first consult the relevant articles in the U.S. Constitution. Then I attempt to determine the intention of the writers of the Constitution by reviewing the Federalist Papers, and any other pertinent writings. Finally, I see if there have been any similar cases ruled on by the Supreme Court which may have established a precedent for the issue under review. Fortunately, I have already researched and addressed the constitutionality of pandemic restrictions in my previous blog "are-pandemic-restrictions-violating-your-first-amendment-rights.html". From the previous blog on this topic we know that states have broad powers to restrict individual liberties in the name of public health. In issues of medical and scientific uncertainties, state health officials should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health matters. Restraints may be placed on constitutional rights by the state for the common good. However, the restrictions have to be applied without preference to content or viewpoint. For example, if officials restrict indoor religious gatherings to 50 people, they must restrict all indoor gatherings to 50 people. This is where I think the State of New York crossed over the line. The state singled out houses of worship and imposed harsh restrictions on indoor religious gatherings. Let’s take a look at the case.  Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York : www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, along with Agudath Israel of America sought to overturn an Executive Order issued by Governor Cuomo which imposed restrictions on attendance at indoor religious services taking place in “red” or “orange” zones. In red zones, no more than ten people could attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance was limited to twenty-five. The religious groups claimed that this was in violation of the Free Exercise (of religion) Clause of the First Amendment. They argued that the regulations treated houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. Five of the nine justices agreed, writing that “…the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment”. As an example, in an orange zone attendance at houses of worship is limited to twenty-five people, even though non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many people to admit. It should be noted that before this case was decided, Governor Cuomo reclassified the areas in question from orange to yellow, allowing for religious services to take place at 50% of their maximum capacity. However, the Court went forward with the case because the Governor could enact more restrictive classifications at any time.  Implications of the Ruling: The case’s immediate impact is narrow, setting aside two specific restrictions on attendance at houses of worship in New York. The ruling did not overturn all pandemic restrictions at houses of worship, such as mask wearing and social distancing mandates. I don’t think that this case sheds any additional light on how Justice Amy Coney Barrett will rule in future cases. She did vote with the conservative majority, but did not issue her own opinion. The most telling opinion was written by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch. He wrote, “Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis”. He went on to write that the court precedent that Chief Justice Roberts cited in a related California case, “…hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic”. You may read the full text of the case and accompanying opinions at the link cited above.  Earlier in the year the Supreme Court upheld indoor religious service restrictions in California and Nevada: (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf). These restrictions were not as severe as the ones in New York, and applied equally to religious and secular organizations. The new conservative court may have a different view. The New York case will certainly embolden religious groups, and we will soon see challenges to California’s restrictions on indoor religious gatherings. Just this Thursday the AP reported that the Supreme Court ordered a lower federal court to reexamine California restrictions on indoor religious services in light of the recent ruling in New York. With COVID-19 cases surging in California, it is uncertain if the Governor’s restrictions will stand. What does seem certain is that Chief Justice Roberts will have a challenging time holding sway over the five conservative justices, and his position as the swing voter on the Court has been neutered.  I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning New York’s attendance restrictions on religious gatherings. These restrictions specifically targeted houses of worship in violation of their First Amendment rights. New York classified such businesses as liquor stores, bicycle repair shops, hardware stores, and acupuncturists as “essential”, and therefore not subject to capacity restrictions. This seems arbitrary. Does it make any kind of sense to restrict a 1000 seat church to ten or even twenty-five attendees when it is legal to cram 200 people into the passenger cabin of a jetliner for a six-hour transcontinental flight? Not to get sidetracked, but most airline travel today is nonessential, and a passenger may take off their mask to eat or drink. Sounds like an indoor restaurant to me, but restaurants are no longer allowed to offer indoor dining. My point is, that it is a slippery slope when we allow public officials to pick winners and losers. When that happens, we have a lot more to lose than just our religious freedoms. As for the new conservative court, governors have been warned that they better carefully consider any restrictions that interfere with the free exercise of religion, even during a pandemic.  February 23, 2021 Update: On February 5, 2021 the Supreme Court ruled that California’s ban on indoor church services violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. But the Court kept in place prohibitions on singing and chanting, and allowed the state to limit indoor services to 25% of the building’s capacity. This is not surprising in light of a similar ruling in New York last November.
The decision was 6-3, with the majority arguing that California had singled out places of worship for unfair treatment. This is hard to argue against since some religious buildings are the size of whole city blocks, and restricting any attendance in such buildings seems arbitrary and not grounded in science. The Court’s three liberal decenters stuck to the belief that the Court should not overrule the public health experts during an ongoing pandemic. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 American @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  We in the U.S. are still living through the drama of the 2020 presidential election. Just like in the 2016 election, many voters found themselves voting against one candidate rather than for a preferred candidate. John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties…is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” It appears that Adams’ worries have come to pass. But we have not gotten here overnight, and there is plenty of blame on all sides of the political spectrum. More importantly, is there anything that individual voters can do, or do we just have to accept the status quo?  There are many organizations and grass roots movements working to patch the holes in the political system, and to strengthen the democratic process in our country. I have already written about some of them. I dedicated a blog post to the Electoral College (the-electoral-college-love-it-or-leave-it.html). The “National Popular Vote” is an organization attempting to neutralize the Electoral College (https: w.nationalpopularvote.com/). Here are a few other organizations, of varying political views, that are attempting to make a difference:  The Lincoln Project: (https://lincolnproject.us/). This organization was established by a group of conservative republicans to defeat Donald Trump and Trumpism, even if it meant helping Democrats get elected to office. In their view the political party is less important than restoring leadership and governance that respects the rule of law, recognizes the dignity of all people, and defends the Constitution and American values at home and abroad. With Donald Trump setting himself up as a presidential candidate in 2024, or simply as a Republican power broker, the Lincoln Project will not soon go away.  Run for Something: (https://runforsomething.net/). This organization helps to support young diverse progressives running for office. Their goal is to build a strong Democrat bench for elected and leadership positions.  Indivisible: (https://indivisible.org/). This is a national grassroots movement of millions of activists in every state, with partnerships between thousands of autonomous local Indivisible groups and a national staff. Their main goal is to defeat the right-wing takeover of American government and build an inclusive democracy.  Sunrise Movement: (https://www.sunrisemovement.org/). This is a youth movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process. The Sunrise Movement is attempting to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and well-being of all people.  Swing Left: (https://swingleft.org/). This organization helps individuals find the most impactful things that they can do to help Democrats win key elections.  Americans for Prosperity: (https://americansforprosperity.org/). This is a right leaning group that engages in broad-based grassroots outreach to advocate for long-term solutions to the country’s biggest problems. They focus on issues that prevent people from reaching their full potential, such as immigration, tax reform, burdensome regulations, healthcare and criminal justice.  Freedom Works: (https://www.freedomworks.org/). A right leaning organization established to build, educate, and mobilize the largest network of activists to advocate for the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, free markets, personal liberty and the rule of law.  Unite America: (https://www.uniteamerica.org/). This grass roots organization is dedicated to putting country over party, which is what attracted me to it. It is a movement of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents working to put voters first by fostering a more representative and functional government. They do this by investing in nonpartisan electoral reform campaigns and work to elect centrist candidates. Two major issues that Unite America is working on are “open primaries” and “rank-choice voting”. If these two voting models were adopted nation-wide, it would go a long way towards loosening the stranglehold that the Republicans and Democrats have on our electoral system. Let’s look at these two policies more closely.  Open Primaries: In eighteen states, independent voters are either prohibited from voting in party primary elections or face restrictions. This is because the primary system is closed to only those registered to one of the two major political parties. This seems undemocratic, and unfair due to the fact that all taxpayers pay to hold elections. Open primary systems allow independent voters to vote in either party’s primary. Independent voters, and voters not affiliated with a political party, are the fastest growing segment of the electorate. Open primaries give all constituents a voice in the election and it moderates the process by forcing politicians to appeal to independents as well as to their base. Closed primaries have the perverse effect of producing elected officials more accountable to their party than their constituents. Party primaries are a main reason why elected representatives refuse to work across the aisle. Working across the aisle is often viewed as being disloyal to the party and may result in getting beaten by a more ideological extreme candidate in the next election. “Open Primaries” (https://www.openprimaries.org/) is an organize advocating for open primaries. It was founded on the principle that no American should be required to join a political party to exercise their right to vote.  Rank-Choice Voting (RCV): An election system in which a voter can rank candidates in order of preference. It is really quite simple. Here’s how it works:
 Advantages of RCV over Traditional Voting:
 Rank-Choice Voting is not just wishful thinking. Five states use RCV for overseas and military voters, and twenty municipalities use or have recently approved the use of RCV. In 2016 Maine passed a law that mandates that all state and federal primary elections, and federal general elections be conducted by RCV. In 2020 Maine became the first state in the U.S. to use rank-choice voting in a presidential election. Follow this link to learn to more on RCV in Maine: (https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/elections/what-is-and-how-does-maine-ranked-choice-voting-work/97-e7964e06-a087-4b79-97cc-7f053c294248).  Earlier this month voters in Alaska approved a ballot measure to mandate the use of rank-choice voting in general elections and the use of “top-four” nonpartisan primaries (https://www.adn.com/politics/2020/11/17/alaska-becomes-second-state-to-approve-ranked-choice-voting-as-ballot-measure-2-passes-by-1/). In Alaska’s new “Final Four Voting” system, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would run in a single primary open to all voters. The top four vote getters advance to the general election. In the general election, voters rank the four candidates in order of preference. This is certainly a threat to the status quo (Democrat and Republican parties), but it puts voters first by giving them more of a voice in their elections.  Keep an eye on future elections in Maine and Alaska, this could (and in my opinion should) be our future all across America. The reason that these reforms have taken hold in Maine and Alaska, is that the voters in these states are very independent and don’t march in lock-step with the two major political parties. Our country is more politically polarized than ever, and this is not going to change any time soon if just two political parties are calling the shots. Let’s heed the warnings against hyper-partisanship that George Washington articulated in his farewell address, and the great political evil of a republic divided by two great parties that John Adams warned about. “Open primaries” and “rank-choice voting” are nonpartisan approaches that give voters more choice, promotes candidates with broader appeal, and encourages politicians to look beyond their party’s interests. We don’t have to accept politics as usual.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected].
Thanks, Armchair American  With COVID-19 raging across the world, and the U.S. dealing with the aftermath of a very contentious presidential election, there is no better time to reflect upon the lessons that I learned while walking the “Camino de Santiago”. Also known as “The Way of St. James”, the Camino is an ancient Christian pilgrim route(s), leading from various points in Europe to the cathedral in the city of Santiago de Compostela in northwest Spain. There is a shrine in the cathedral which holds the remains of the apostle St. James. Christians have been making this pilgrimage for centuries, and today hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world, walk the Camino each year. Many modern “pilgrims” walk the Camino for religious or spiritual reasons, some to connect with nature, others for health and exercise, and many others in search of peace and quiet reflection.  One of the most popular Camino routes is the French Way (Camino Francés), which starts in St. Jean Pied-de-Port in the Basque region of southern France. This route crosses the Pyrenees from France and traverses approximately 800 km (nearly 500 miles) across northern Spain to the Galician city of Santiago de Compostela. My wife and I walked the Camino Francés over five weeks in the autumn of 2019. We walked the Camino in 33 stages and took two rest days. We walked for 6-8 hours, and averaged 15 miles on the trail per day. The journey took us over mountains, through river valleys, across deserts, and through high, barren plateaus. The weather ranged from hot and sunny to freezing rain. But we were prepared for that. What is difficult to prepare for is the endless miles of solitude, with nothing but your thoughts to keep you company. The time for reflection and self-evaluation is the essence of any journey, and we had nothing but time. The physical hardships of a long trek over several weeks force you to go deep within yourself to find the strength to continue. You also find valuable lessons along the way, that I now carry with me. It has been just over one year since we completed the Camino, and upon reflection, I realize how important those Camino lessons are in helping me get through this very tumultuous year. I would like to share with you some of my reflections, and the lessons that I learned while walking the Camino de Santiago:  Be in the moment and don’t be overwhelmed by the challenges ahead. When we crossed the Pyrenees, the mountain pass that we had to reach was visible for many miles. The task seemed impossible, and we thought that we would never make it to the top. We finally realized that it was counter-productive to focus on the destination and the number of miles yet to be walked. Instead, we tried to focus on the moment and enjoy where we were at the present time. This made the journey easier and much more enjoyable. This has parallels with the long road we still have to face with the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be many months or even years before effective therapeutics and vaccines are developed to get us through the pandemic. But if we focus on the end point, our lives will be filled with dread and hopelessness. We need to live in the present and make the most of every day, regardless of the circumstances.  We have been down this path before. We get caught up thinking that our experiences are new and our challenges are unique. But they seldom are. Along the Camino we walked through many ancient towns, often along roads built by the Romans over 2000 years ago. We walked the same roads as millions of pilgrims before us. This knowledge helped me to put our current day challenges into perspective. Many generations of people have had to endure deadly pandemics, most recently the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919. Contentious presidential elections have been with us through most of our history as a country. Who can forget Bush v. Gore in 2000, when the Supreme Court stepped in and essentially decided the election? We have been down this path before, and will overcome our present-day challenges.   We often confuse wants for needs. One night we stayed in a family run hostal in the small village of Hornillos del Camino. The proprietor insisted on carrying my bag up to our second-floor room. I apologized for the weight of the bag and he replied, “No problema, Americans need lots of things”. To myself I said, “He has no idea”. On the Camino you carry most of your belongings in a backpack. Therefore, it is important to carry only the essentials. Living out of a backpack you quickly learn what is essential and what is not. It is amazing how few things you actually need on a daily basis. There is a saying on the Camino, “The quantity of possessions one travels with represents the amount of fear one carries”. It is so true because most of what we carried were spare articles of clothing and items for every contingency that we could think of. We carried supplies in case of rain, if it was sunny, if there were bugs, if we got blisters, if we couldn’t find food, or if we couldn’t find water. Our packs were full of our fears. We hadn’t yet learned another truth, that “the Camino will provide”. If you put your faith in God’s hands, or trust in the universe, things tend to work out. The pilgrim network along the Camino is vast, and dedicated to helping fellow pilgrims. As long as we were open to the generosity of others, we were never alone and lacked for nothing.  Our commonalities outweigh our differences. As we walked the Camino, we met people from all over the U.S., Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Canada, and South America. Many of these people came from different cultures and spoke different languages. But we all came to Spain for a common purpose. Each of us got up every day, donned our backpacks, and walked many miles before searching for a place to take our evening’s respite. We filled our water bottles from the same fountains, ate communal dinners under the same roof, shared our stories of aching feet, and discussed the best route for tomorrow’s journey. The electoral college map of the United States paints a pretty bleak picture of the political divide in this country. But politics does not define who we are as individuals or as a people. We are human beings with common goals and desires for ourselves, families, and communities. Political labels don’t define us, but our common humanity does. If we accept our differences and embrace our commonalities, together we can more this country forward.  Control is an illusion. You can’t control everything, because you are not in charge. My wife and I are planners, and we had every stage of the journey mapped out. But you soon learn on the Camino, as in life, there are so many things that are out of your control. We couldn’t control whether the day would bring scorching heat or bitter cold rain, whether the water at a particular fountain was potable, if the shop would be open during siesta, or if our feet would blister despite all the training. Today we can’t predict, much less control, the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The only thing that we can control is our reaction to the circumstances that we find ourselves in. Today we make a choice whether or not to wear a face mask in public and to practice social distancing. I’m not saying that planning is a bad thing. We just have to be flexible, and realize that there are many things in our lives that we have little, if any, control over.  If you wait for the perfect time or for the conditions to be just right before you act, you won’t get very far. There is a degree of risk in every journey and in anything of consequence that we endeavor to do. It is human to try and minimize risk. It is also human to focus on “why not” to do something, rather than on the “how” to move forward or to make it happen. If you wait for conditions to be just right, you will miss out on much that life has to offer. We decided to walk the Camino after a relatively short planning period. We would have been better prepared if we had waited to the spring of 2020. But if we had waited, we would have never made the journey due to COVID-19.  Silence is golden. While walking the Camino I didn’t listen to music or podcasts. I wanted to be open to the sounds of nature and the voices of my fellow pilgrims. I found that by turning off the noise that I was accustomed to at home, I was better able to experience my surroundings and become immersed in the experience. I was also able to experience peace, and become more comfortable with my inner thoughts. The lack of TV, internet and newspapers along the Camino, made it a much more peaceful, rich, and rewarding experience. We also made it a rule not to discuss politics on the Camino, which did wonders for our mental health. I find it important to take a little time each day to turn off the noise, and spend time in quiet reflection. If this occurs when out in nature, all the better.  Walking in nature is like Prozac for the soul. Walking forces you to slow down and become more attuned to your surroundings. You see, hear, smell, and sense things that you never would by driving, or even riding a bike. The beauty of nature helps us to connect with the wonders of life and rekindle the simple joys that were common in our youth. Along the Camino we visited some of the most spectacular cathedrals in the world. But nothing that man has built comes close to the majesty and beauty of the landscapes and natural wonders that we encountered. As the weather and topography changed, so did the colors and variety of flora that we encountered. We would not have been able to experience the wonders of the natural environment if we were traveling any other way than on foot.   Chance encounters and unplanned moments bring joy to the day. Along the Camino there are a lot of ancient cities and historic sites which we knew about and planned for. But some of our most memorable experiences were chance encounters and unexpected sites that we happened upon. For example, the magnificent view that emerged as we left a wooded path, rounding a corner and being confronted by a long-horned cow, the local cat who escorted us through her village, the brightly colored mushrooms and unusual flowers that sprang up along the path, the ancient stone walls covered in bright green moss, or the chance encounter with our Camino friends, Dave and Julie from Tasmania, on the bustling streets of Santiago. These were the types of things that made each day special. There are many experiences in life that are fleeting, and we may never experience them again. Knowing this helps you appreciate them more, and to be fully present when they occur.  Take time to occasionally look behind you to see where you have been. In our efforts to charge ahead and get to the next destination, we often forget where we are or where we have been. On long days when we were pressed for time, the natural thing to do was to lower our heads and press forward as quickly as possible. It was only when we paused and looked back over the landscape that we had just traversed, did we realize where we had been. Once we realized this, we would often stop and look behind us. This gave us an appreciation for our surroundings, and a chance to see it in a whole new light. Knowing that in all probability we would never be in this place ever again, helped to crystalize the importance of the moment for us.  You don’t have to go to Spain to have a “Camino” experience. Traditionally it has been a religious pilgrimage, and to some it still is. For others, it is an opportunity to be in the company of like-minded people. Some like the communal living, others enjoy hiking and want the physical challenge of the Camino. Others are drawn to the natural beauty, and still others come for the historic and architectural wonders. The Camino experience may be found close to home, particularly in the beauty and solitude of nature. Take out the earbuds, turn off the cell phone and TV, and find peace and solitude where you are. Who doesn’t need that right around now?
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  Congratulations to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. President-elect Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States, and Kamala Harris will become the first woman Vice President in our history! Donald Trump’s campaign played to voters’ fears, while Joe Biden’s campaign appealed to voters’ hopes. At a time when this country is more politically divided than ever, who do you think has a better chance of uniting us? The Republican Party should be proud of how close the race was, and the seats that they picked up in Congress. But they need to get behind a leader who brings out the best in Americans, not the worst. A leader who can rise above petty politics, who sees America as one people, and works to unite rather than divide. As predicted, the coronavirus did not mysteriously disappear on November 4th, and the stock market did not crash. Joe Biden is a decent and honest man. Let’s all get behind Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and help to confront the formidable challenges ahead. God Bless America.   In 2016 Donald Trump ran for president as an outsider and disrupter. This helped him defeat Hilary Clinton, a Washington insider with over thirty years of baggage. According to exit polling during the 2016 presidential election, the most important quality identified by voters was that the candidate would bring change (https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/what-do-voters-want-confrontation-or-compassion). What are voters looking for this time? What qualities do voters look for in a presidential candidate, and what role does leadership play? Leadership Qualities in a Good President: According to many historians, there are several leadership qualities found in good presidents (https://www.ushistory.org/gov/7e.asp). They include the following:
 Leadership in Turbulent Times: We are certainly living through turbulent times. The coronavirus pandemic has killed or sickened millions of people, forced millions out of work, and placed a dark cloud over the economy. There are ongoing protests over racial injustice, and a widening political divide. But history shows us that America has lived through much more difficult times that required great leadership to see us through. No president was faced with a more difficult challenge than Abraham Lincoln who lead the country through a devastating civil war. Franklin Roosevelt came to power during the Great Depression and then lead the country through World War II. At moments of great challenge these presidents were guided by a sense of moral purpose, sought to heal divisions, and had to bring the country together to summon a common purpose.  Doris Kearns Goodwin explores presidential leadership in her book “Leadership: In Turbulent Times”. She discusses the following traits that served several presidents well during turbulent times:
Why We Vote the Way We Do: Research into why voters choose one presidential candidate over another has been going on for many years. It should be no surprise that the single most powerful predictor of a person’s vote choice is his/her political party affiliation (https://pprg.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/10-The-psychology-of-voting.pdf). Party affiliation is usually based upon shared values and preferences on a handful of key policy issues. The second predictor of who a voter will choose is based on the voter’s perception of the candidate’s personality traits (intelligence, knowledge, trustworthiness, and ability to be a strong leader). Since I am not affiliated with a political party, I lean towards this camp. This will be the 12th presidential election that I voted in. In the previous eleven, I voted for the Democratic candidate four times, the Republican five times, and a third-party candidate twice.  Trump vs Biden: Make no mistake, this election is a referendum on Donald Trump. Joe Biden is a secondary character in this drama. Will voters continue to respond to President Trump’s seemingly never-ending chaos and drama? Or will they be motivated by a more steady and stable form of leadership? According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 64% of Republicans like Trump’s willingness to confront and challenge the establishment in government and to shake up business as usual. In contrast, 70% of Democrats prefer a leader, like Joe Biden, who will bring competence and compassion to the way the government operates. Why I Don’t Believe Donald Trump Will Win Reelection: The president has not positioned himself to unify the country at a time when it is much needed. This country needs a beacon of hope due to the pandemic, economic uncertainty, and ongoing protests and anger over racial injustice. Donald Trump has used these issues to divide the country rather than to unite it. He has made no appeal to American optimism and aspirations. According to a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll, most registered voters believe that in the last four years bipartisanship, race relations, and crime have worsened. Sixty-two percent of registered voters list Donald Trump’s management of COVID-19 as a major failure. COVID cases are surging across the country, and the stock market is sensing a weakening economy as a result. The president has no prescription for either COVID-19 or the weakening economy. In fact, the president has not articulated any vision or policy proposals for the next four years. The American people really don’t know what Donald Trump believes. He will do and say whatever he thinks will get him reelected. Donald Trump has shown scorn for science, puts politics before people, and aligns himself with the worst elements of our society. He doesn’t know the damage he does by not denouncing QAnon and right-wing militias. I’m sure that he doesn’t really believe in what these groups espouse, just like he really doesn’t hold the views of the religious right. But they are part of his base, and that is all that matters. Why I Didn’t Vote for Donald Trump: I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016 because he had never held elected office before, he had no experience in governing, he had little foreign policy experience, and he lacked the temperament and character to lead this country. Donald Trump has now been president for the better part of four years (seems like forty), and my instincts were correct. Here is a list of my top reasons for not voting for Donald Trump in 2020 (but I could have listed many more):
According to taped conversations with Bob Woodward, the president knew the dangers of the coronavirus, but chose to down play them. It is obvious that the president didn’t want to hurt his reelection chances and gambled with peoples’ lives. This was the deal breaker for me. 
 Americans are resilient, and this country will survive and thrive regardless of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Due to the millions of mail-in ballots, we may not know the winner for many days after the election. We all need to be patient and let the process work itself out. If Donald Trump wins the election, he will not tear up the Constitution and declare himself “President for Life”. If Joe Biden wins, he will not confiscate your guns, impound your gasoline powered vehicles, or turn the suburbs into public housing projects ruled by violent leftists.  I have never seen the American electorate more energized by an election, and this is encouraging. If our “experiment” in self-government is to last, more citizens need to be involved. The electorate needs to champion candidates, for all levels of government, who will truly represent the people, and not just their political party. Yes, we are living through turbulent times, but we have been here before. This country is at an inflection point. It’s time we take stock, learn from the lessons of the past, and move forward with the courage and determination to make this representative democracy work for the vast majority of Americans.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks  Large numbers of voters are not waiting until November 3, 2020 to cast their ballots. As of this date over 23 million Americans have voted, and so have I. Like me, most Americans had decided a long time ago who they’d vote for, at least for President. Maybe the pandemic restrictions have focused our minds more acutely on the election this year. Or maybe people are so sick of politics that they just want to vote, and move on with their lives. I fall into both camps. COVID-19 has forced states to change the way that elections are held, and have provided voters with more options. Let’s take a look at some of these new options and I will share my voting experience.  What’s the Rush to Vote?
 Early Voting: In order to facilitate voting during the pandemic, many states have taken steps to make it easier to register to vote, and have expanded ways to cast a ballot. Early voting of some sort is now available in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Options for early voting include mail-in voting/absentee voting, early in-person voting, and off hours voting, including weekends. For the specifics on each state follow this link: (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx).  Many states now allow voters to vote absentee without having to provide a reason. States like New York that require a valid reason to vote absentee, now consider fear of COVID-19 a valid reason for requesting an absentee ballot. Some states have sent absentee request forms to all registered voters. California, Nevada, and the District of Columbia have taken it a step further by sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters (https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-10-16/a-2020-success-story-early-voting-soars-even-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-rages-on).
Voters now have several options once they complete their mail-in ballot. They can use the United States Postal Service, official drop boxes set up by the counties and states, in-person drop off sites, and at polling places once in-person voting begins. Most states will accept mail-in ballots even after election day, as long as they are post marked on or before November 3, 2020. This varies from state to state so check with your local election officials if you are unsure. Here is a link for the specific rules for each state (https://www.usa.gov/election-office).  Reports indicate that Democrats have outvoted Republicans 2 to 1 so far in this 2020 Presidential election (https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54572790). Of these early voting Democrats, women and blacks are voting in high numbers. Republicans may be following President Trump’s lead by not trusting mail-in voting. Democrats may win the early vote, but they shouldn’t become over confident. Republicans will probably show up in large numbers at the polls on November 3, 2020. Pre-processing Early Ballots: How states handle ballots received prior to election day varies widely. It ranges from verifying signatures, opening envelopes, and readying ballots for tabulation. Twenty-two states process mail-in and absentee ballots upon receipt. Another twenty-five states process them starting several weeks, to just hours before election day. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Alabama, and Mississippi are not allowed to process or count mail-in ballots before election day. The following link provides the specifics for each state: (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx). If the election is close, the delay in processing mail-in and absentee ballots may result in a winner not being known for hours to days after the close of polls on November 3, 2020. Americans need to be patient and be prepared for a delayed election result.
My Voting Experience: I have known for many months how I would cast my vote in the Presidential election, but there were many down ballot candidates, propositions, and measures that needed further consideration. After spending the last several weeks watching news programs, listening to candidate forums (over Zoom of course), reading newspapers, and wading through dozens of election mailers, I sat down and filled out my mail-in ballot this week. In May, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order making all registered voters in the state automatically eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 General Election by mail. Therefore, every voter in California was mailed a mail-in ballot. The process really got started last month. Here is the time line:
 If you use a drop box to deliver your ballot, make sure that it is officially sanctioned. In California, official drop boxes must include the county seal and be securely bolted to the ground. The use of unauthorized drop boxes to collect ballots is illegal in California. This has not stopped the GOP from placing unofficial drop boxes in several locations in Southern California. The motives for this are not exactly clear. Threatened with legal action, the GOP has stopped claiming that these drop boxes are official, and is restricting where they can be placed (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/16/923969669/california-eases-off-legal-threats-over-gop-unauthorized-ballot-drop-boxes). Counties publish the sites where sanctioned drop boxes are located. So check with county election officials if you are unsure.  When voting by mail it is important to get your ballot in as soon as possible. This leaves time to correct mistakes that sometimes occur, such as a signature that can’t be verified for whatever reason. The more people who vote early, the shorter the lines will be on election day, minimizing the spread of COVID-19. Getting your ballot in early will also ensure that your vote is included in the initial election results which will be reported shortly after the polls close on election day. The sooner the election results are known, the less opportunity there will be to spin a false narrative around the legitimacy of the election.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected].
Thanks, Armchair American  Every four years we are reminded that the President and Vice-President of the United States are not democratically elected. They are elected by a group of 538 electors of the Electoral College. This November 3rd (or sooner if you vote by mail) when you cast your vote for President and Vice-President, you will actually be telling your State which candidate you want the State’s electors to vote for. What is the Electoral College? Does it still work as originally conceived, and what are the alternatives?  Electoral College: It is a body of 538 electors which is selected every four years from each State and Washington D.C., for the express purpose of electing the President and Vice-President of the United States. Every State gets one elector for each member of congress. California for example, has 2 Senators and 53 Representatives in the House of Representatives, and therefore has a total of 55 electors. Washington D.C. has a total of 3 electors.
As spelled out in the Constitution, each State chooses its own electors. The selection process differs by political party and by State. The National Association of Secretaries of State has compiled a list of the laws governing the selection of Presidential Electors for each State. (https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-10/summary-electoral-college-laws-100220.pdf). In all States, except Maine and Nebraska, the Presidential candidate with the most popular votes in that State, receives all of the State’s electors. In Maine and Nebraska, the electors are awarded to the popular vote winner of each congressional district, plus two electors are awarded to the winner of the State’s popular vote. In order to be elected President, the candidate must receive the majority of the electors, 270 or more.  Important Dates:
 Why We Have the Electoral College: Article 2, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution established that electors selected from each State, and not a direct vote of the people, would elect the President and Vice-President. The Constitution established the number of electors each State was entitled to, but left it up to the individual States how to select their electors. Originally the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes would become the Vice-President. This was changed in 1804 with the 12th Amendment, which directed electors to cast separate votes for the President and Vice-President. The drafters of the Constitution didn’t want a direct vote for President for several reasons. They needed to appease the less populated States, particularly those in the South who feared that a direct vote would disadvantage them. The drafters were also fearful that a direct election by all voters could be corrupted by foreign and other unscrupulous interests. It was also feared that the citizenry would not be well informed in order to make such an important selection to the highest office in the land. According to Alexander Hamilton, “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70).  Reasons to Change the Electoral College: According to a recent Pew Research poll, a majority of U.S. adults favor replacing the Electoral College with a simple popular vote system for electing the President. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/13/a-majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-replacing-electoral-college-with-a-nationwide-popular-vote/). Below is a list of the main reasons to replace the current system:
 Reasons to Keep the Electoral College:
 The National Popular Vote: Fixing the current system through a Constitutional amendment is a non-starter in the present political climate. Is there a non-Constitutional change that could achieve the same outcome as eliminating the Electoral College? The answer is yes, and a movement is already underway to do just that. The “National Popular Vote” is an organization established, not to eliminate the Electoral College, but to effectively neutralize it. The premise is rather simple. If enough States agree to pledge all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, that candidate will win the Presidency, effectively side-stepping the Electoral College. When enacted by enough States with a combined electoral vote count of 270 or higher, the National Popular Vote interstate compact will be established and go into effect. Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by fifteen States and Washington D.C., representing 196 electoral votes. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/). This system would be more democratic in ensuring that every voter, in every State, has a direct vote in electing the President and Vice-President of the United States. With the 2020 Presidential election just three weeks away, I can’t think of a better time to review just how we elect our President, and to consider all the ramifications surrounding the process. The Electoral College has some pluses and minuses, but does it serve the best interests of the American people? I certainly don’t think that it functions as originally intended. The concentration of power in a few Northern States is no longer a problem. The selection of qualified Presidential Electors to weed out unsuitable candidates is an antiquated notion. In the age of the internet and mass media, we no longer have to rely upon direct contact with a candidate to hear their message. A national popular vote system would be more democratic and give voice to a more diverse group of candidates. The Democrat and Republican parties have not served this nation well over the past several decades. I seriously think that it’s time for some fresh ideas and fresh faces to confront the challenges ahead.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  President Trump and the Republican Party are doing their best to label Joe Biden as a socialist. This has become a prominent message coming out of the Trump campaign. Donald Trump has called Joe Biden a “Trojan horse for socialism”, and Biden’s “socialist agenda” was the republican’s favorite boogeyman at last summer’s convention. So, is Joe Biden intent upon unleashing a socialist agenda, bringing down capitalism and altering the American way of life? It all depends on your definition of socialism. Let’s take a closer look at socialism and whether or not Joe Biden’s agenda fits the definition.  Socialism: Various forms of socialism have been around for centuries. Socialism as it is now understood, emerged in response to the extreme economic and social changes experienced by the working class during the Industrial Revolution. Wealth disparities grew and working conditions deteriorated during this period.
Socialism is an economic and political system based on public ownership of the means of production, which includes the machinery, tools, factories, and natural resources to produce the goods required by society.(https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp). Under socialism, individuals can still own property, but industrial production, natural resources, and infrastructure are communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government (the exception being communist countries that have authoritarian central governments). Any surplus or profit from these communally owned resources benefit the citizens. In a pure socialist system, all property is communally owned, a strong central government controls the economic production of goods and services, and provides citizens with their basic necessities including food, housing, medical care and education. The government essentially redistributes wealth and narrows the gap between rich and poor. There are no modern-day countries that have a pure socialist system. Cuba and China have strong elements of socialist market economies. These are actually mixed economies, where private enterprise and free markets are contributing more each year to the overall economic output. In China, privately owned companies generate from 33% to 70% of the GDP. In Cuba approximately 20% of the workforce is engaged in private enterprise. China is thriving principally because of its embrace of capitalism and the development of a market-based economy. Countries such as Venezuela and North Korea, which cling to their stringent socialist models, are economic failures and their citizens are suffering mightily. Most countries have mixed economies which contain some degree of capitalism and a number of socialist policies. The United States has a capitalist economy, controlled by government regulation, and backed up by entitlement programs. Free public education, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are all considered socialist programs. When enacted, these programs were considered very controversial, and there was concern that they would lead the country down the road to socialism. But can you imagine doing away with these programs today?
Social Democracy: Many consider Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to be socialist countries, but they are not. They are social democracies. Social democracies have free market economies paired with high taxes to support generous government entitlement programs. Individuals and corporations own a significant portion of the capital and means of production. Democratically elected governments redistribute wealth through high levels of taxation and strict regulations on labor and capital. In return for high taxes, most citizens are entitled to free education (through university), universal healthcare, subsidized childcare, subsidized housing (in some cases) and generous pensions. This system works well in the Scandinavian countries because there is a high level of trust in the government and government institutions. Distrust of the government in the United States is high, and therefore most citizens take a dim view of high taxes and wealth redistribution.  Joe Biden’s Policy Proposals: I view Joe Biden as a moderate democrat. In an effort to unify the party he has had to move further to the left to appease some of the progressives (Bernie Sanders). Some of Biden’s policy proposals call for big spending. So does that make him a socialist? Not according to the previous discussion on socialism. Let’s examine some of Joe Biden’s proposals that the republicans claim will lead us down the road to socialism:
A comprehensive list of all of Joe Biden’s policy proposals can be viewed at his website: (https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/#).  Many of Joe Biden’s policy proposals look like big government tax and spend programs. But on closer inspection they are really long overdue investments in America. Both political parties have argued that a big infrastructure bill is needed. I can think of no greater investment in our future than in education. Giving people the tools that they need to work and thrive makes them less dependent on the government, not more. In my view, smart investments in people, infrastructure, and American jobs, will pay dividends well into the future. Spending on small businesses, private sector jobs, green technology, and required infrastructure upgrades, is anything but socialism. Make no mistake, it doesn’t matter which political party is in office, government spending is massive and it will only get larger. The political parties just have different priorities for that spending. Even during a roaring economy, annual budget deficits under Donald Trump reached one trillion dollars, and that was prior to the start of the pandemic. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/01/trumps-deficits-are-racing-past-obamas/#380f76348199). At least Joe Biden is prepared to increase taxes to pay for his budget priorities. The republicans fool themselves into thinking that tax cuts will “starve the beast” and force lower government spending. In reality, the deficits and debt march steadily higher. High budget deficits to support low taxes might be an effective reelection strategy, but it is a disastrous long-term strategy. The president has already passed trillions of dollars in legislation to get the crippled economy going again, and he will pass legislation to spend trillions more in the coming weeks. That doesn’t sound like a laissez-faire, free market economy to me. So be careful who you label “socialist” Mr. President.  Joe Biden’s overall policy package is not socialist. It calls for a lot of government spending, but it is mostly offset by eliminating President Trump’s tax reductions of 2017. Many socialist democracies around the world are thriving because they have found a balance between high taxes and the services that the citizens want. This country wants the benefits of a social democracy but is unwilling to pay for them. At least the democrats are more honest about it than are the republicans. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  Today President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away last week. The Constitution gives the president the right to nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. What makes this nomination unusual is the fact that the presidential election is only 38 days away. There has never been a nomination made for a vacancy to the Supreme Court this close to a presidential election. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has said in recent days that President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate. All indications are that the confirmation hearings will begin the week of October 12, and a final vote by the full Senate should take place by the end of the month, a few short days before the election. The Senate has a constitutional duty to fulfill this function, so what is the problem?
Blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee: Within an hour of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said that the Senate should not confirm a replacement until after the 2016 presidential election. At the time he said “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248).  On March 16, 2016 President Obama nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Soon after, Senator McConnell stated “It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.” (https://www.wbur.org/npr/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person). Senator McConnell further stated “The America people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that may be”. Then on March 23, 2016, after meeting in a closed-door session with Senate Republicans, Senator McConnell said “I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled; this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president.” That same day the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley(R-Iowa), said that his panel would not move forward with any consideration of President Obama’s nominee.” Senators McConnell and Grassley coauthored an op-ed in the Washington Post around that time. In it they stated “Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” Another argument used by Senator McConnell in 2016 to justify blocking the nomination of Judge Garland was, “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.” The problem is, no such tradition exists, (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/09/24/mcconnells-fabricated-history-to-justify-a-2020-supreme-court-vote/). What Does History Tell Us: According to the NYU Law Review, in the post- Civil War era there have been nine Supreme Court vacancies in place during presidential election years. For eight of those vacancies the nomination process began during the election year. In all of these cases the president was able to fill the vacancy during the election year. ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2752287). Recently Senator McConnell has come up with a different precedent to justify his treatment of Judge Garland. According to the senator, since the 1880’s no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential year. So, the Senate’s new precedent states that if the president’s party controls the Senate during an election year, the president gets to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. But when the opposite party controls the Senate during an election year, the president’s nominee cannot be confirmed by the Senate. There is no basis in the Constitution or in precedent to back up Senator McConnell’s latest claim. What good is the Constitution, Senator McConnell, if you get to make up the rules as you go along? Senator McConnell Shows His True Colors: It should be no surprise that Senator Mitch McConnell is hyper-partisan and places party loyalty above all else. During President Obama’s first term, Senator McConnell stated that his prime motive was to deny the president a 2nd term. So much for doing what’s best for the country! During a speech in 2016 the senator stated, “One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.” Last year Senator McConnell used his blocking of the Garland confirmation to raise campaign funds. In campaign literature he wrote, “If there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 2020, I will proudly confirm President Trump’s nominee. Sure the left and their allies in the media will go crazy. The Democrats will raise millions to defeat me. That won’t stop us from putting another conservative Justice on the Supreme Court” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/29/mcconnell-blocked-obama-supreme-court-choice-wouldnt-stop-trump/1268883001/). President Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy: President Trump announced the nomination today, just 38 days before the presidential election on November 3, 2020. This is the closest Supreme Court vacancy to a presidential election since 1864. But at that time President Lincoln would not put forth a nominee to fill the vacancy until after the election. There is no precedent for any Supreme Court nominee being confirmed between July and election day. There may simply not be enough time to properly vet a nominee to a lifetime appointment before the election, as the Republicans are attempting to do. Since 1975 it has taken an average of sixty-seven days for a nominee to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate. But Senator McConnell has already stated that the president’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the Senate, and he is sticking by the precedent that he created to justify blocking Judge Garland’s confirmation. Since the Senate is controlled by the president’s party, the president is perfectly justified in nominating a Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year, and the Senate is perfectly justified in doing everything possible to get the nominee confirmed. Yes, Senator McConnell, the Constitution is blind regarding political party on this issue, too bad you can’t be. According to the latest news, confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett will begin in the Senate on October 12, 2020 and a full Senate vote will take place by the end of October, a few short days from the election. Mitch McConnel is not alone in his hypocrisy. All but two Republican Senators have pledged to see the confirmation process through to the end. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is front and center when it comes to hypocrisy. In 2016 following the death of Justice Scalia, Senator Graham stated “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make the nomination.” During the 2018 Judge Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Senator Graham stated “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, if the primary process is started, we will wait to the next election.” With the prospect of confirming a conservative justice to the bench, Senator Graham has done an about face. He is leading the charge to make sure that Judge Barrett gets through the confirmation process and has a vote by the full Senate. Senator Graham is in a tough reelection campaign, so we shouldn’t be surprised that politics trumps principles. Democrat Reprisals: As you would expect, Democrats in the Senate and across the country are screaming foul and calling out the Republicans for their blatant hypocrisy. But scream as they might, there’s not a lot the Democrats can do to stop the confirmation process. The president has the right under the Constriction to put forth a nominee, and the Senate has the right to consider the nomination and consent or not. It only takes a simple majority vote in the Senate to approve the appointment, and it appears as if Leader McConnell has the votes. Already the Democrats are threatening reprisals if and when they take back control of the Senate. Here are a few:
A Win for the President: Getting a third conservative justice appointed to the Supreme Court will be a huge victory for President Trump. During a Fox News Radio interview last Thursday, the president indicated that he would agree with a Supreme Court ruling that Biden won the election. But short of a court decision, the vote would amount to a “horror show” because of fraudulent ballots, according to the president. He really believes that the election results will be contested, and he is doing everything within his power to assure that outcome. That is why the president needs nine Justices on the Supreme Court prior to the election. In Donald Trump’s world a Supreme Court Justice that he appoints is beholden to him. Much like the Attorney General and the FBI Director, who the president expects to do his bidding. The idea of an independent Justice Department doesn’t enter into his calculus, and neither does an independent judiciary. Donald Trump believes that if the election is contested and goes to the Supreme Court, that he will win due to the court’s ideologic makeup or out of loyalty to him. If the Supreme Court Justices actually rule on cases based on their political affiliations, then this country is really in deep trouble.  Judge Amy Coney Barrett is by all accounts a very conservative judge. But my main issue is not with the ideologic makeup of the Supreme Court. Call me naïve, but I have faith that the Justices rule on their honest interpretation of the Constitution and not on political motivations. I have an issue with Senator Mitch McConnell’s corruption of the Senate’s process for confirming Supreme Court Justices. I fear for what it will do to the proceedings of the Senate going forward. The Senate is a separate branch of government from the Executive branch, not a rubber stamp for it. If the Senate acts in lockstep with the president, where are the checks and balances, and who is protecting the country from Executive overreach? To act one way when the president is a Democrat and another way when the president is Republican, puts party over country and is just plain wrong.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  What do you call a group of black men with guns? A gang! What do you call a group of white men with guns? A militia! To put it mildly, this has been a difficult summer. The pandemic continues unabated, the country has endured devastating flooding down south and historic wild fires out west, and protests against racial injustice continue in several U.S. cities. Many of these protests have devolved into ugly and violent confrontations between protestors, law enforcement and counter-protestors. What really disturbed me was the presence of armed members of militia groups at several of the protests. Watching heavily armed men, who were not authorized law enforcement agents, patrolling the streets of America left me with a sense of foreboding. My fears were realized last month when a 17- year old boy with an automatic weapon, shot and killed two people at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. After my outrage began to subside, it got me thinking about the militia movement and its legitimacy. Are these groups legal and what exactly constitutes a militia?  History of Militias in America: Militias have existed in America since colonial times. We all remember the Minutemen who confronted British soldiers in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War. The definition of what a militia is, as defined by Congress, has changed over time. In colonial times a militia represented a military force raised from the civilian population, for the common defense of the community. Militias were distinct from professional soldiers, and were generally organized around towns, regions, or colonies. Militias are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Clause 15 grants Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. Clause 16 grants Congress the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and discipling the militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Services of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. Even before the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, we learned about the intentions of these “Militia Clauses” from the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were authored mainly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and were published in New York newspapers to promote the ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton dedicated Federalist No. 29 to the issues concerning the militia. The founding fathers feared that a standing army would be used by a tyrannical government to suppress the liberties of the citizens. But they needed to provide for the common defense. They saw state militias as a necessary compromise. Militias are “the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist”, (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30). The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791. It states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The “Militia Act of 1792” stipulated that the militia would consist of each and every able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, who is at least 18 years of age and under the age of 45. No other major legislation concerning militias was passed until the “Militia Act of 1903”, which repealed the Act of 1792. The 1903 Act divided the militia into two classes; the “Organized Militia”, which was the National Guard, and the “Unorganized Militia”, which was the reserve militia consisting of all male citizens of at least 18 years of age and below the age of 45. The Act offered federal funds to each state to train and equip its National Guard and set policies and procedures for training. The president was empowered to call up the National Guard for up to nine months to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws. The federal government was not allowed to order the National Guard to serve outside of the United States. The “Militia Act of 1908” removed the nine-month limit on federal service, and gave the president the authority to set the length of service.  In the lead up to the United States’ involvement in World War I, the “National Defense Act of 1916” was passed. It gave the federal government more control over the National Guard. Guardsmen were now required to take both state and federal oaths of enlistment. When called to active duty by the federal government, Guardsmen were relieved of their status in the State Militia and were federalized to operate outside of the United States. The 1916 Act was amended in 1933 to create a reserve component of the United States Army called the “National Guard of the United States”. Since then, all National Guardsmen (and women) have been members of both their State National Guard and the National Guard of the United States. Modern Militia Movement: This country was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of rugged individualists. Their founding principles revolved around individual rights, personal freedoms and civil liberties. These founding principles are held dear by most Americans, but seem to motivate some people to extremes. This is the case with many antigovernment groups. “Antigovernment” is a broad category of groups tracked by the FBI and civilian organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Some groups are racist, some are hate groups, some are white nationalists, and some are militias. There are some groups that just want to be left alone, like survivalist groups, and members of various “Sovereign Citizens” groups. There are armed “Insurrectionists” intent on anarchy or over-throwing the government. There are right-wing “Patriot” groups who see themselves as protectors of the Constitution, and the last defense against an overreaching government. There are militia groups made up of all races and creeds. But most militia groups fall into the far-right Patriot category.  The modern American militia movement has been fed by white supremacy, conspiracy theories and bigotry. The main thrust of these theories is that the federal government is controlled by a mysterious elitist cabal which plans to take away Americans’ guns, overthrow local governments and install martial law over citizens. Another motivating theme is that the left is trying to flood America with immigrants who will vote Democrat and upset the balance of power. The real danger of these groups has been their support of racist and violent causes. They are highly visible at white supremacist rallies and frequently act as counter-protestors at Black Lives Matter marches. Several militia members have been convicted in recent years of acts of violence against Muslims and destruction of mosques.  There have always been militia groups in America operating on the fringes of society. Two key events have sparked the modern militia movement. The first was the 1992 armed standoff between Randy Weaver and US Marshalls at his compound in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver was a white supremacist who was being served a warrant for weapons violations. An armed confrontation ensued, resulting in the deaths of Weaver’s wife and son, and a US Marshall. The other incident was the 1993 raid by federal agents on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. The raid went terribly wrong, resulting in a 51-day siege, leaving 76 people dead. These two incidents fueled the view that the government was out of control. According to the SPLC, antigovernment groups peaked around 1996 at over 860.  The 1996 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building killed 168 people. This heinous crime was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh who had ties to a Michigan militia group. The national spotlight on this event precipitated a decline in the militia movement. Over the following decade the number of active militia groups declined from 441 to 35 according to the SPLC.  The election of Barack Obama in 2008 saw a resurgence in the militia movement. This was spurred on by the racist “birther” movement which questioned Obama’s legitimacy, and out of fear that the government would begin to confiscate guns. The two largest and well-known militias in the country, “The Three Percenters” and the “Oath Takers” were started around this time. The Three Percenters was started by Mike Vanderboegh, a gun rights activist from Alabama. It is named for the dubious theory that during the Revolutionary War only three percent of Americans took up arms against the British. It is a loosely affiliated group active in most states with no formal leadership structure. According to their website (thethreepercenters.org), their goal is “to utilize the fail safes put in place by our founding fathers to rein in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny. We are working to preserve the intent of our government as designed”.  The Oath Keepers was founded by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and former U.S. Army paratrooper. According to their website (oathkeepers.org), it is a non-partisan association of current and former military, police, and first responders who pledge to keep and fulfill the oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Oath Keepers pledge to defend the Constitution above all else, and follow the group’s orders and bylaws over those of elected officials and the agencies which employ them. Oath Keepers mostly recruit from the ranks of the military and law enforcement because they have weapons and tactical training. Those without military or law enforcement experience may join as associate members to support the cause. The Oath Keepers has a structured organization with leadership at the national, state, and local levels. It hopes to create a network of militias across the country. The group’s moto is “Not on Our Watch”. Their websites describe these groups in reasonable terms, but they are very active and well known to the FBI and law enforcement agencies in all 50 states. These groups provide the justification for members to take the law into their own hands, often at gun point, as we have seen at the border and during Black Lives Matter protests.  Many militia group members adhere to the beliefs of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Here is a link to my post on QAnon in case you didn’t read it: (https://armchairamerican.com/blog/qanon-what-is-it-and-should-we-care). In the QAnon theory, Donald Trump is a lone heroic warrior, elected to defeat the deep state. It appears as if Donald Trump is the one government official that the antigovernment movement can get behind. The president’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and his border policies feed right into the philosophies that motivate many of these groups. To make matters worse, the president refuses to condemn the right-wing extremism we have witnessed. His lack of condemnation of the violence in Charlottesville in 2017 is a prime example of this. To this day he blames all of the violence at Black Lives Matter protests on “antifa”, when the majority of it has been caused by right-wing movements (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/908347989/former-dhs-official-white-house-failed-to-take-far-right-extremism-seriously). Are Private Militias Legal: Private or citizen militias are armed military groups composed of private citizens and they are not recognized by federal or state governments. Some states ban private militias outright, but all fifty states have some provision in their state law that prohibits private military and paramilitary activities. Forty-eight states have constitutional provisions requiring all military activities, private or otherwise, to fall under the control of civil authorities. Twenty-nine states have statues that prohibit the formation of private military units without the authorization of the state government. These statues specifically prohibit such groups from parading or drilling in public with firearms. Twenty-five states have statues that criminalize certain paramilitary activity, such as training others in the use of firearms or explosives for the purpose of creating civil disorder. Most states have laws against “false assumption”. This includes assuming the duties of a law enforcement agent, and the unauthorized wearing of military uniforms.  In recent years we have seen many of these laws violated at the southern border, at right-wing rallies, and at Black Lives Matter protests. These laws were put in place to prevent the type of chaos and violence witnessed at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The rally attracted many heavily armed militia groups dressed in military fatigues. These groups purported to be acting in the role of “peace keepers”, in violation of Virginia state laws.  All summer we have witnessed protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. Many of these protests were met by counter-protestors from private militia groups dressed in military gear and carrying assault rifles. These groups claimed to be keeping the peace and protecting private property. This put them in violation of state “assumption laws”. Beyond being illegal, these activities have led to deadly shootings in Portland, Oregon and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
For a complete list of the laws governing private militias in all 50 states, Georgetown University has a comprehensive review: (https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf). Militia groups are active in all fifty states and membership is in the tens of thousands. The number of militias peaked in 2011 at 334, and in 2019 there were 181 active militia groups being tracked by the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antigovernment). Militia groups have an idealized view of America, one that reflects the spirit of the Constitution, and their actions are justified by patriotism. These groups portray themselves as innocent neighborhood watch type groups, but they are not. The FBI considers well-armed militias to be a significant threat, and members of these groups have participated in a number of acts of domestic terrorism. We have a president who refuses to condemn these groups because many of their members are part of his political base. Acts of violence continue to occur at legitimate protest marches, and we are a few short weeks away from a very contentious presidential election. President Trump is doing his darndest to cast doubt on the integrity of the upcoming election. He views voting by mail as fraudulent and has stated that the only way that Joe Biden can win is by fraud. But we have heard this tune before. Before the 2016 election, Trump accused the Democrats of “rigging” the election and told his supporters to be on the lookout for voter fraud. The Oath Keepers heard this as a “call to action” and asked its members to station themselves at polling places around the country to “help prevent criminal fraud and attempted criminal voter intimidation on election day”. Are we in for a repeat in 2020? Unfortunately, I think we are. The presence of any outside groups at polling places, particularly armed groups, is voter intimidation pure and simple. We need to be aware of it and bring it to the attention of law enforcement if we witness it. I don’t even want to think about what could happen if Donald Trump feels that the election is stolen from him. We also need to make sure that our local law enforcement agencies are enforcing the laws which regulate militia group activities at protests and rallies. These groups claim to be protecting the streets for the citizens of the country, but I see it differently. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  On August 8, 2020 President Trump signed the “Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster”(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-deferring-payroll-tax-obligations-light-ongoing-covid-19-disaster/). The memorandum directs the Secretary of the Treasury to “defer certain payroll tax obligations with respect to the American workers most in need”. What’s this memorandum all about, who benefits, and is it a good idea? Like an “Executive Order”, an “Executive Memorandum” has the full force of the law. To learn more about the difference between these two executive actions go to (https://guides.loc.gov/executive-orders/order-proclamation-memorandum). What Does the Latest Presidential Memorandum Do: It allows employers to stop withholding Social Security taxes from employees’ paychecks for the rest of 2020. This would increase take home pay by 6.2%. Employers are still required to pay the 6.2% Social Security tax that they are responsible for. The program takes effect September 1, 2020 and ends December 31, 2020. Who is Eligible: Any employee whose wages or compensation is less than $4,000 during any bi-weekly pay period on a pretax basis, or an equivalent amount if not paid bi-weekly. If an employee’s pay fluctuates, they may participate during any pay period when the maximum is not exceeded. Do the Deferred Taxes Need to be Repaid: Yes, all the Social Security taxes will need to be repaid in 2021. The president's memorandum directs the Secretary of the Treasury to explore ways to eliminate the obligation to pay these taxes back. When President Trump signed the memorandum, he said that he will forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax if re-elected. But Congress would need to pass legislation to permanently reduce the payroll tax or forgive any taxes not paid under this program.  In order to clarify some of the questions about the Presidential Memorandum, the IRS issued guidance under “Notice 2020-65” (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-20-65.pdf). The notice provides the following clarifications:
Is the Payroll Tax Deferral a Good Thing: In my opinion no. There are lots of concerns that I have with the program. Here are a few:
 I’m not the only one against the president’s payroll deferral. On August 18, 2020 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation, National Restaurant Association, and nearly 30 other business groups sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, voicing their concerns. Chief among them were the serious hardships it could place on employees who would receive a large tax bill in 2021. The groups were also concerned about the administrative and legal obligations imposed on employers. These business groups indicated that they would recommend that their members continue withholding payroll taxes as before and not participate in the program. If President Trump is able to enact a permanent payroll tax holiday after January 1, 2021, as he suggested, it would have serious consequences on the longevity of the Social Security Trust Fund. According to the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, a permanent payroll tax holiday would deplete the Trust Fund’s reserves by the middle of 2023 (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/VanHollenSandersWydenSchumer_20200824.pdf).  With all of the downsides to the president’s payroll deferral program, why would he even bother? It’s all political! The Congress is in a stalemate over additional pandemic relief spending, and the president wants to show that he is a man of action. The signing ceremony for the Presidential Memorandum was a great photo-op and it brings a lot of news coverage. News coverage of the president being “presidential” is about the best campaign coverage there is, and it doesn’t cost anything. Between now and election day, take any new policy statement or initiative with a grain of salt. We are in the middle of silly season.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  This is part 2 of a “Tale of Two Conventions”. The last blog focused on the Democratic Convention and this blog will focus on the Republican National Convention. Both conventions are over and the sprint to the November 3rd election has begun. After watching the two conventions I wondered whether the two parties were talking about the same America. The portrait of America painted by each candidate and their place in it, could not have been more different. It can best be described by that keen chronicler of the human condition Charles Dickens, “It was best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…..” The Republican National Committee (RNC) did not issue a new political platform for 2020 but adopted the 2016 platform, which enthusiastically throws its support behind President Trump and his policies. This pretty much confirms that the RNC is taking a backseat to the politics of Donald Trump. This is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan, and certainly not the party my father would recognize. The RNC provides the vehicle and the stage, but make no mistake, this is now the party of Donald Trump. The convention was produced and paid for by the RNC, but it was written and directed by Donald Trump. Republican National Convention: The convention took place on August 24-27. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, plans for an in-person, large scale convention were called off just a few weeks ago. The convention was originally scheduled to be held at the Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, but was cancelled in early June due to strict public health guidelines. The location was then moved to Jacksonville, Florida, but was subsequently cancelled due to spikes in the coronavirus. The convention ended up taking place remotely from the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington D.C. and a few other locations. The official business of the convention took place at the Charlotte Convention Center in North Carolina. The overall theme of the convention was “Honoring the Great American Story”. Going into the convention, Donald Trump trailed Joe Biden in the national polls by about 9 points. He has received poor marks for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his handling of racial injustice. If the president can change the narrative away from the coronavirus to crime and civil unrest, his polls should benefit coming out of the convention. Trump’s Goals for the Convention:
Highlights from Day One: The theme for the day was “Land of Promise”. With 336 delegates gathered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Mike Pence was unanimously nominated as Donald Trump’s running mate. During the roll call Donald Trump was officially named the Republican Party’s nominee for president. In contrast to the Democrat’s “Roll Call Across America”, the RNC roll call was a procession dominated by older white men in front of a white background emblazoned with #RNC2020.
The president broke with tradition and appeared live at the convention center to give his acceptance speech. This was Donald’s party after all, and he made appearances all four days. The speech set the tone for the rest of the convention. The president painted a dark picture of what America would look like under a Biden administration; claimed his coronavirus efforts saved millions of lives; claimed that he resided over the most successful economy in the history of the country, and blasted mail-in-ballots. The president would appear two more times during day one in prerecorded videos from the White House. The first was a conversation with front line health care workers, and the second was an appearance with several former hostages whose releases had been negotiated by his administration. As was the case on all four nights, there was very little social distancing and no one wore a mask. Most of the speeches during the evening were delivered from the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C. The speeches coalesced around four major themes: the president is not a racist; the president did a great job handling the coronavirus pandemic; the president created the greatest economy in the history of the country and can do it again; the Democratic Party will take the country down the path of socialism and allow our cities and suburbs to be overrun by mobs of rioting and looting criminals. The speakers of note included Jim Jordan, Herschel Walker, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Steve Scalise, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump Jr., and Tim Scott. The McCloskeys are a white couple who live in an exclusive suburb of St. Louis. They received a lot of national attention by pointing guns at passing Black Lives Matter protestors. They were vilified by the left and proclaimed heroes by the right for protecting their property. They made an appearance at the convention via video to warn America that if Joe Biden is elected president the suburbs will be become a lawless wasteland.  Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle both gave angry speeches along the same lines. Donald Trump Jr. said that “Beijing Biden” would cozy up to China, bring in more illegals, repeal the tax cuts, and allow anarchists to flood the streets. Guilfoyle was even more strident in her condemnation of Biden. It was an over the top performance during which she warned that democrats “want to enslave you to the weak, dependent, liberal victim ideology, to the point that you will not recognize this country or yourself.” Donald Trump later called Guilfoyle to tell her it was the best speech that he had ever heard. You decide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErSd_YiRCAs .  Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor and President Trump’s first UN ambassador, came across as poised and professional. Being a woman of Indian descent, she pushed back against the claim that Donald Trump is racist. She even said that “America is not a racist country.” This defied logic, but the convention was all about defying logic. It was obvious to anyone paying attention that Nikki’s speech was little more than a kickoff to a 2024 presidential run. Probably the best speech of the night was given live by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. Scott is the only black Republican Senator and was a pleasant reprieve from the anger and doom and gloom heard all night. He used his own story to show how much racial progress the country has made. In the best line of the night Scott said, “Our family went from cotton to Congress in one lifetime.” Scott also pushed the case for school choice and warned against the democrats who would turn our country into a socialist utopia. Conspicuously absent from the convention was the last GOP president George W. Bush, and Senator Mitt Romney who ran against Obama in 2012. Highlights from Day Two: The theme for the day was “Land of Opportunity”. The White House played a prominent role as a backdrop for many of today’s proceedings. The day was full of Trump family members and the controversy over whether or not the Hatch Act had been violated. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in most political activity inside federal buildings or while on duty. The president and vice president are exempt from the civil provisions of the Hatch Act, but federal employees are not. Federal employees who helped stage certain political events witnessed on this day may be in violation. The following convention events may have violated the Hatch Act:
President Trump’s economic advisor Larry Kudlow led off the prime-time speeches, giving the president credit for the greatest economy in history. We have heard this claim often and it is simply not true. It all depends on how you measure the economy. GDP growth is a common measure, and there have been several instances in the post WWII era (including during the Obama administration) when GDP growth was higher than during the Trump administration. True, the stock market achieved record highs during Trump’s term. But the stock market is not the economy, and 80% of stocks are owned by the 10% richest households in America. Cissie Graham, the granddaughter of Billy Graham, and Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee gave voice to Donald Trump’s pro-life stance. Johnson claimed that Donald Trump was the most pro-life president ever. I guess that Ms. Johnson had forgotten that Trump was pro-choice before he decided to enter politics. Nicholas Sandmann delivered a very effective anti-media message from the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann was a high school student falsely portrayed as the aggressor during a confrontation with a Native American activist last year during demonstrations near the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann was wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat and was vilified on social media and in many main-stream news outlets. As a result, Sandmann and his fellow high school students received death threats, and their conservative High School received various threats of violence. After an investigation cleared the students, they filed defamation lawsuits against several news outlets. Several of the lawsuits are still pending, but the students have won multi- million dollar judgements against The Washington Post and CNN.  The other notable speeches of the evening were given by Trump’s children Tiffany and Eric, and the first lady Melania Trump. It was interesting that neither Tiffany nor Eric (and Donald Jr. for that matter), attempted to the portray the president as a kind and loving father, or attempt to humanize him in any way. Tiffany used her speech to rail against the main-street media. Eric expounded on his father’s accomplishments and the dangers of a Biden presidency. Eric stated that “Biden has pledged to defund the police and take away our cherished Second Amendment”. This is a false claim. Melania Trump’s speech was notable for taking place live from the White House Rose Garden, which had recently been renovated for the occasion. To her credit, the first lady expressed thanks to the front-line workers who have risked their lives during the pandemic, and offered sympathy for those grieving the loss of loved ones to COVID-19. The speech came across as Melania’s reintroduction to the American people. Unlike the speeches of Jill Biden and other Biden family members, there was little attempt to soften Donald Trump the man, or to humanize him in any way. Highlights from Day Three: The theme for the day was “Land of Heroes”. Most of the speeches for day 3 were delivered form the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington D.C. The night was capped off with a live speech by Vice President Pence delivered from Fort McHenry in Baltimore. There were lots of America flags present during every speech and the backdrop of Pence’s speech was a nod to the military and patriotism. Women’s suffrage was celebrated, and there was an effort to portray President Trump as a champion of women. Many women spoke in praise of Trump, including his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, Kelly Ann Conway, Kayleigh McEnany, Kristi Noem, Marsha Blackburn, Elise Stefanic, Joni Ernst, and Karen Pence. The women provided a softer tone than the previous days, but there was still the steady beat of doom and lawlessness under Democratic leadership. There was also the appeal to social conservatives with a clear pro-life message. The message was effectively delivered by Sister Didi Burn, who was a military physician before becoming a nun. She made a passionate plea for the dignity of all life, particularly the unborn. But she lost me when she claimed that Donald Trump was the most pro-life president, in all stages of life. I guess the Sister hadn’t received the memo on Trump’s prior pro-choice stance and his support of the death penalty. Madison Cawthorne delivered some of the most rational lines of the night. Cawthorne is the young Republican nominee in North Carolina’s 11th District. He urged politicians to do more listening and less talking. “To liberals I say, let’s have a conversation”, he said, and “to conservatives, let’s define what we support and win the argument in areas like healthcare and the environment.” Cawthorne is confined to a wheelchair as a result of an auto accident and finished his speech by rising to his feet with the aid of a walker. This young man is going places.  The best speech of the night was delivered by Mike Pence, surrounded by American flags in front of a live audience. The backdrop of Fort McHenry was quite impressive. Pence gave an articulate rendering of the triumphs of the Trump administration and came across as the loyal and stoic number two. Pence was fairly moderate in his remarks but threw plenty of red meat to the base. According to Pence, we won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America. "Biden is a cheerleader for communist China and a Trojan Horse for the radical left". It was a well delivered speech, written with rose-colored glasses, and absent any sense of what was really happening on the streets of America. You would never know that most pro sports weren’t taking place due to player boycotts and racial protests were intensifying due to new police shootings. At the end of the speech Pence was greeted on-stage by President Trump. You didn’t think the president could let Pence have all the lime-light? If there was any social distancing taking place, it all vanished when the audience rushed the fence-line to get closer to Trump and Pence. There were no face masks to be seen in this crowd. It certainly fit the narrative of the entire convention, that the pandemic was in the rear-view mirror.  Highlights from Day Four: The theme of the final day of the Republican convention was “Land of Greatness”. All the speeches and film clips were a leadup to the day’s main event, President Trump’s speech. We heard from some of the president’s most ardent supporters, most of whom where men. These included Mitch McConnel, Dana White (President of UFC), Ben Carson, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Cotton, and several others. The tough on crime theme permeated the speeches, punctuated with a little criminal justice reform. The president’s daughter Ivanka delivered a speech live from the South Lawn of the White House. The speech was billed as the introductory speech for Donald Trump. But it was more like a checklist of Ivanka’s accomplishments and a rationalization of why her advisory position as first daughter should be elevated to a cabinet position.
The president’s 70-minute speech was delivered live in front of 1,500 people on the South Lawn of the White House. It was an impressive scene, with the White House behind the president and the Washington Monument in the distance. I just hope that those 1,500 spectators got tested for the coronavirus after the speech. There was no social distancing and I could count on one hand the number of people wearing masks. Periodic shouts of “four more years” didn’t help matters. It had all the makings of a “super spreader” event. But the president got his live audience and the use of the White House as a prop for his reelection bid. The administration later claimed that the Hatch Act was not violated because the South Lawn was not inside a federal building. True, but campaign signs were everywhere and the “People’s House” was clearly used as a prop in a campaign rally. If not technically illegal, it certainly broke with tradition and blurred the lines between politics and government. The speech was too long and came across as a “State of the Union” speech. The speech was more notable for what it didn’t say than what it did say. There was no positive vision for the future, no real agenda for the second term, and little mention of how to tackle the coronavirus, get the economy back on track, or address the social injustices rocking the country. The speech was a laundry list of the president’s accomplishments and a summation of the things we had heard all week about why the country should fear Joe Biden and the radical left. The speech was delivered without much passion and the president’s energy level was low. I wonder if the speech was written by Kelly Ann Conway because it could have been titled “Alternative Facts”. The president tried to hammer home his administration’s successful efforts at combating COVID-19. According to the president “We developed, from scratch, the largest and most advanced testing system in the world”. He made the claim that the US “has among the lowest case fatality rates of any major country in the world”, and the US “has developed a wide array of effective treatments”. But even more startling was the statement that his administration focuses “on the science, the facts and the data” to handle the coronavirus pandemic. “If we listened to Joe, hundreds of thousands more Americans would have died”. You get the point. The president accused the democrats of rewriting history, but the speech tried to do exactly that. The president’s speech kept the fact checkers busy all night with his claims about the economy, “massively lowering drug costs”, pushing healthcare premiums “way down”, passing the Veterans Choice bill, and others. But my favorite claim of the night was the assertion by the president that he had done more for the African American community than any other president since Lincoln. I know that it’s difficult when you don’t know what you don’t know. I guess the president forgot (or didn’t know) about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act signed into law by Lyndon Johnson. If Joe Biden could do everything that Trump claimed, he would not be our next president, he would be our first king! Here’s just a few of the things that Biden would do as president: He would eliminate borders, remove charter schools, take away your guns, eliminate the suburbs, release 400,000 criminals onto the streets, destroy American jobs and American greatness. Scary stuff! 
The president looked relieved when the speech was finally over; I know I was. Not to be outshined by her husband, Melania Trump wore a bright lime green dress. It was hard to miss her in the crowd and got her a lot of attention at the convention and on the internet. That green dress provided a perfect green-screen for memes and Photoshop shenanigans. She walked right into that one, but she is the fashion expert afterall. he best part of the night was the spectacular fireworks display over the national mall which illuminated the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. You just had to know that the Republican’s fireworks display would dwarf that of the Democrats.  Did Trump Achieve his Convention Goals?
Final thought: On Thursday of this week Donald Trump called on North Carolina voters to vote twice. Once by mail and once in person, to test the system. Why not make it simpler Mr. President, just bring in the Russians as poll monitors. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  The Democratic and Republican Presidential Conventions are now over and the sprint to the November 3rd election begins. As painful as it was, I watched all four nights of each convention and have some opinions on what I saw. With the country still in the throes of the coronavirus pandemic, it was the best opportunity for each candidate to make their pitch to a mass audience. Watching the conventions one after the other had me wondering whether the two parties were talking about the same America. The portrait of America painted by each candidate and their place in it, could not have been more different. It can best be described by that keen chronicler of the human condition Charles Dickens, “It was best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…..” The firework displays have ended and the fact checks have all been made. Now we will take a look at the value of conventions, the highlights from the eight nights, and examine whether or not each candidate accomplished what they set out to achieve. Since 1832 every major political party has held a national convention to nominate its presidential candidate. Primary elections did not exist until the 20th century, so the main purpose of the convention was to select the party’s candidate for president. FDR was the first president to accept the nomination in person at the 1932 Democratic Convention. It wasn’t until 1972 that primary elections determined who each party’s candidate for president would be. Today, the conventions are mainly celebratory events and the nomination of the party’s candidate for president is a mere formality. Party business is conducted during the convention, but what the public sees on TV is a celebration of the party faithful and a major promotion of the nominee. Due to coronavirus pandemic, both conventions were delayed by about one month and for the most part they were conducted remotely. This race is going to be a lot closer than the polls and talking heads currently predict. Biden should comfortably win the popular vote, but I think the Electoral College will determine who the next president will be. Therefore, the swing states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will be receiving a lot of attention by the candidates. Even before the conventions, most voters had already decided who they will vote for in November. About 13% of the voters are still up for grabs, and it is this group that the candidates will hope to sway through their convention messaging. This post will focus on the Democratic Convention and the next on the Republican Convention.  Democratic National Convention: The convention took place on August 17-20, and officially took place at the Wisconsin Center in Milwaukee. While the convention was choreographed from Milwaukee, it was mostly held remotely from various venues across the country. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris gave their acceptance speeches remotely from the Chase Center in Wilmington, Delaware. The overall theme for the convention was “Uniting America”.  Biden’s Goals for the Convention:
So began four days of personalizing Joe Biden and slamming Donald Trump for his response to the coronavirus pandemic and his divisive policies. A major objective of the first day of the convention was to unify the party. All of the major candidates who had run against Biden in the primaries were featured. Bernie Sanders gave a forceful endorsement of Biden and urged his supporters to rally behind Biden to “remove the most dangerous president in history”. Several Republicans spoke in favor of Joe Biden, most notably former Ohio Governor John Kasich who said that Donald Trump had betrayed the principles of the Republican Party.  Kristin Urquiza gave a moving tribute to her father Mark, who had died from COVID-19. Her father was a Trump supporter who had listened to the president downplay the virus. In one of the best lines of the night, Kristin said of her father, “His only preexisting condition was trusting Donald Trump, and for that he paid with his life”.  The best speech of the night was delivered by Michelle Obama who gave a scathing assessment of Donald Trump. She said that rather than providing steadiness, the president only delivered chaos, division, and a total and utter lack of empathy. She continued, “Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country. He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us. It is what it is.” Highlights from Day Two: The program was emceed by actress Tracee Ellis Ross and the theme was “Leadership Matters”. Joe Biden was nominated by Jacquelyn Asbie, a security guard who Biden had met in an elevator. It was a nice touch highlighting Biden’s connection with regular people and his common decency. Acording to Asbie, “In the short time that I spent time with Joe Biden, I could tell he really saw me, that he really cared, that my life meant something to him”. The nomination was seconded by Delaware Senator Chris Coons and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester.  The highlight of the evening for me was the “Roll Call Across America”. The prerecorded roll call took us to all 57 states and territories as we watched each officially cast their votes to nominate Joe Biden. It was a visual journey across the country showcasing the nation’s geographic diversity, natural beauty, historic sites, cultural traditions, and its people. Featured speakers included Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, Bill Clinton, Caroline Kennedy, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Colin Powell and Jill Biden. A few notable lines from Clinton’s speech were: “Joe helped bring us back from a recession before and he can do it again”, and “Trump would blame, bully and belittle, and Biden would build back better”. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a republican, further bolstered Biden’s bipartisan credentials and his leadership capabilities. According to Powell, “On day one Joe Biden will restore American leadership”. A film narrated by Cindy McCain showed the friendship between her husband, the late GOP Senator John McCain, and Joe Biden. The film highlighted Biden’s humanity and his ability to work across the aisle.  The final speaker of the night was Biden’s wife Jill. She gave her speech live from a classroom at Brandywine High School in Wilmington, Delaware where she taught English in the 1990s. She took us through Joe’s life and the tragedies which shaped him. It was a passionate and personal account of Joe Biden that many have not seen. According to Jill, “Joe knows how to make a broken nation whole, because he has done the same in his own life through several tragedies”. It was a warm and effective speech. Highlights from Day Three: The program was emceed by actress Kerry Washington and the theme was “A More Perfect Union” (Sub-Themes: “A More Perfect Society” and “A More Perfect Economy”). Kamala Harris was nominated as Vice President which she formally accepted. Of the many speakers on this day the most notable were Gabby Giffords, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, and Barack Obama. Gabby Giffords, the former Arizona Representative, was severely injured when she was shot several times in 2011. She gave a brave and powerful address on her struggles to recover from her injuries and on her ongoing fight against gun violence. Hillary Clinton urged everyone to vote and to convince everyone you know to vote for Joe Biden. “We need numbers so overwhelming Trump can’t sneak or steal his way to victory. Vote like our lives and livelihoods are on the line, because they are”. Barack Obama made perhaps the best speech of the convention. It was the most passionate that I have ever seen him. His condemnation of Trump was blistering and downright visceral. Some of the highlights from the speech include: “Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t”. “This administration has shown that it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win”. “He’s shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves”. Phew! Take that Donald.  Kamala Harris formerly accepted the nomination for Vice President and gave her acceptance speech live from the Chase Center in Wilmington, Delaware. In one notable line she said, “There is no vaccine for racism. We have got to do the work”. After her speech she was greeted onstage by her husband Douglas Emhoff and Joe and Jill Biden. Highlights from Day Four: The program was emceed by actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and the theme was “America’s Promise”. I thought that Louis-Dreyfus’ attempts at comedy mostly missed the mark, and seemed out of place. This was another night to beat up on Trump and to show the empathetic and generous side of Joe Biden. Of the many speakers, the most notable were Andrew Young, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Michael Bloomberg, Ashley Biden, Hunter Biden, Ed Good, Brayden Harrington and Joe Biden. A tribute video to Biden’s son Beau was very moving, but I thought a little overdone and unnecessary. A video of Joe Biden’s granddaughters discussing their grandfather was very effective. The final video sequence of the evening leading up to Joe Biden’s acceptance speech was from Stephen Curry and his young family. It was odd, out of place, and left me scratching my head. Some of the most memorable moments of the evening included remarks from Ed Good, a 95-year-old veteran of WWII and Korea. He is former Trump voter and member of the NRA and said, “I think Trump has been the worst president we’ve ever had, so I’ll be glad to see him go”. Michael Bloomberg delivered the most scathing critique of Donald Trump. Said Bloomberg, “When confronted with the biggest calamity any president has faced in the modern era, Donald Trump spent the year downplaying the threat, ignoring science, and recommending quack cures, which let COVID-19 spread much faster than it should’ve, leaving hundreds of thousands needlessly sick or dead. He has failed the American people catastrophically”. He finished by saying “I’m not asking you to vote against Trump because he’s a bad guy. I’m urging you to vote against him because he’s done a bad job”. One of the most poignant talks came from 13 -year-old Brayden Harrington. Brayden stutters, an affliction that Joe Biden has overcome. They met during the primaries and Biden had related to him about his own struggles. Biden shared with Brayden some strategies on how he might overcome his stutter. According to Brayden, “I’m just a regular kid, and in a short amount of time, Joe Biden made me more confident about something that’s bothered me my whole life. Joe Biden cared”. Brayden showed incredible courage to share his story with a national audience, and it really highlighted the character of Joe Biden.  Joe Biden delivered his acceptance speech live from the Chase Center in Wilmington, Delaware. The speech highlighted Donald Trump’s shortcomings but never mentioned him by name. He noted that “Character is on the ballot. Compassion is on the ballot. Decency, science, democracy. They are on the ballot”. Biden outlined his vision for America without getting too specific. He portrayed himself as the best candidate to combat overlapping economic and healthcare crises, and promised to “draw on the best of us, not the worst and be an ally of the light, not the darkness”. It was not an Obama speech, but it was delivered with energy, it was coherent, thoughtful, and generally upbeat. Therefore it was a success. After the speech Joe Biden was joined onstage by his wife Jill and Kamala Harris and her husband, all wearing face masks. The evening and the convention ended with a firework display outside of the Chase Center. They were joined by a number of people outside of the center, who had been invited to watch the festivities from the comfort of their own vehicles.  Did Biden Achieve his Convention Goals?
Overall, I thought that the Democrats used the virtual format to their advantage. It allowed for a variety of voices to be heard. I particularly liked hearing from ordinary Americans rather than from convention delegates hyped up on free booze, carbs and groupthink. The combination of prerecorded videos, music, and speeches worked well. I didn’t like the fact that the emcess were Hollywood actresses. It took away from the message and the Democrats missed a great opportunity to feature some up and coming stars in their own ranks. I also didn’t like all the attention showered on Beau Biden. It came across as a canonization. I feel sorry for Biden’s other kids who have to live in the shadow of St. Beau. I get that Biden has experienced and overcome hardships in his life, but this was overdone. Now it is time for the Biden campaign to kick it into high gear, get out on the road, and counter the alternative facts coming out of the Republican convention. I will devote the next post to the Republican Convention. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American  QAnon is a story that involves the dark web, secret cabals, cryptic messages, biblical prophecies, digital warriors, diabolical villains, conspiracy theories, and presidential politics. Some have called QAnon a cult, a political movement, a burgeoning new religion, and the conspiracy theory du jour. In some respects, it could be any, or all of those things. Or it could be a fantastical experiment of mass manipulation by a rogue social scientist, or rogue state. So, what is it and why should we care? QAnon has induced acts of violence and made its way into national politics, and therefore it warrants our attention. What is QAnon: An “anon” is a person posting on the internet anonymously. “Q” is an unknown person or persons who claims to have a Top Secret “Q clearance” in the government. We first heard from the anonymous Q with a cryptic post on October 28, 2017 on a forum thread called “Calm Before the Storm”, on the website “4chan”. 4chan lives on the fringes of the internet where anonymity rules, and conspiracy theories and illicit activities run rampant. The QAnon conspiracy theory appears to have morphed out of several other “anon” postings, such as “FBIAnon”, “CIAAnon”, “WH Insider Anon”, and “High Level Insider Anon”. These posters were all pro-Trump, and perpetrated many false claims and derogatory comments about Hillary Clinton in the runup to the 2016 presidential election. During October 2016, websites such as 4chan helped to spread the conspiracy theory known as “Pizzagate”. In case you have forgotten about this little piece of hilarity, it was a far-right theory that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong. This theory got a lot of buzz on the far reaches of the internet and has never gone away.  The QAnon theory contends that a secret shadow government, known as the “deep state”, is controlled by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Soros, and a cabal of global liberal elites. According to the theory, the deep state runs a global child sex trafficking ring, and practices satanism, cannibalism and other evils. Sound plausible? In the QAnon theory, Donald Trump is a lone heroic warrior, elected to defeat the deep state. It is up to the mysterious Q to tell the world about Trump’s top-secret war against the deep state, and to rally support behind the president. The eventual destruction of the global cabal can only be accomplished with the support of patriots who search for meaning in Q’s clues (Q Drops). Q has posted over 2000 times to the image boards of 4chan, 8chan, and 8kun. 8 chan was shut down for promoting violence and misinformation, and now most of Q’s posts appear on the website 8kun.  Investigative journalists from NBC News dug into the origins of Q and QAnon. (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531). The investigation determined that three people took the original Q post and expanded it across multiple platforms to build internet followings for profit. This seems to me to be the most likely scenario. The three individuals involved deny this, and the identity of the original Q remains a mystery.  QAnon Philosophy: QAnon rejects mainstream institutions, ignores government officials (they are corrupt), despises mainstream media for spreading “Fake News”, and champions unfettered free speech on the internet. Some of Q’s favorite topics include God, Pizzagate, the wickedness of the elite, the mass hysteria over the coronavirus (promoted by the Democrats to dethrone President Trump), and Dr. Fauci (a deep state puppet). The rallying cry for QAnon followers is “WWG1WGA” (where we go one, we go all). It’s an expression of solidarity which celebrates unity and patriotism. Other favorite Q themes that followers have rallied around include:
QAnon followers are not a simple homogeneous group, and the motives of its adherents are divergent. The many twists and turns to the theory have appeal to many, particularly conspiracy theorists. But most followers are clearly right-wing and pro Trump. One major group of followers focuses on the religious aspects of QAnon. In the language of evangelical Christians, Q quotes bible verses and promotes the Great Awakening. The other major group of followers clings to the notion of the deep state, with Q being a government insider helping Trump to defeat it. They see significance in words beginning with the letter Q spoken or tweeted by Donald Trump. According to Jared Holt, a researcher for Right Wing Watch, the QAnon theory “provides Trump’s most fervent supporters a way to explain away any scandal or slip-up the president may face”. Even typo filled tweets and incoherent rambles are viewed as proofs that the president is in on the conspiracy. It solidifies a portion of Trump’s base that will not be swayed by anything that he says or does. QAnon Goes Mainstream: Q may be anonymous, but the QAnon movement certainly isn’t. In a few short years QAnon has grown from a few fringe chat rooms and message boards to nearly every major social media and commercial platform on the internet. It encompasses a massive international universe of blogs, proprietary websites, podcasts, and all the mainstream social media platforms, including Redditt, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Facebook. According to an investigation conducted by NBC News, Facebook has been key to QAnon’s growth, mainly through its “Groups” feature. A recent internal Facebook investigation has uncovered thousands of groups and pages, with millions of members and followers that support QAnon. (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/qanon-groups-have-millions-members-facebook-documents-show-n1236317). QAnon is not just active in the United States. According to an investigation by the Guardian, there are active groups of QAnon followers all over Europe, Australia, South America, Canada, Mexico, and several of the former Soviet bloc countries. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/11/qanon-facebook-groups-growing-conspiracy-theory).  Along with the massive social media presence, entrepreneurs are cashing in on the QAnon movement. Many are generating revenue from their podcasts, YouTube channels, apps, books, newsletters, and social media platforms dedicated to QAnon. There are others selling millions of dollars worth of Q and QAnon branded merchandise online and at right-wing campaign rallies. Just Google “QAnon merchandise” and you’ll find your pick of hats, T-shirts, belt buckles, coffee mugs, buttons, stickers, and baby bibs! QAnon gets a Political Endorsement: August 19, 2020 will hold a special place on the QAnon calendar going forward. President Trump has occasionally retweeted posts from QAnon affiliated accounts, but this is the first time that he directly responded to questions about QAnon. At a news conference, the president was asked about the QAnon movement, to which he responded, “I don’t know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much; which I appreciate.” He went on to say that “I heard these are people who love our country.” When told by the reporter the basic premise behind the QAnon theory, the president responded by asking “Is that supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing? If I can help save the world from problems, I’m willing to do it. I’m willing to put myself out there. And we are actually saving the world…” As you can well image, within minutes QAnon affiliated social media accounts across the world came to life to celebrate Trump’s comments as validation of their views. (https://apnews.com/535e145ee67dd757660157be39d05d3f).  QAnon supporters have been showing up at Trump rallies since 2018. But only in recent months has their political influence been felt. According to Brian Dunning of the “Skeptoid Podcast”, at least 60 candidates running for Congress had expressed their belief that QAnon is real. Last week QAnon adherent and self-described Islamophobe Laura Loomer, won the GOP nomination for Florida’s 21st Congressional District. Earlier this month Marjorie Taylor Green won the GOP nomination for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District. Ms. Green is a vocal supporter of QAnon and has racist views condemned by many mainstream Republicans. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-qanon/ ). Both women received praise and congratulations for their victories by President Trump. As the politics of QAnon goes mainstream, there are thousands of digital soldiers behind the scenes using social media and fringe message boards to wage information warfare. They are intent on influencing the 2020 elections to keep Donald Trump in power. How many of these QAnon social media accounts do you think are run by trolls controlled by the Russian government? Many I would suspect.  The Darkside: Yahoo News disclosed the existence of an FBI intelligence bulletin, dated May 30, 2019, which described conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists as a growing threat. (https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-documents-conspiracy-theories-terrorism-160000507.html). One of the prominent conspiracy theories mentioned in the bulletin was QAnon. The bulletin warns that these conspiracy theories may very likely motivate some domestic extremists to engage in criminal or violent behavior. So, what landed QAnon on the FBI domestic terrorism bulletin? The FBI cited a number of arrests related to QAnon in which death threats and acts of violence were involved. These included an armed stand off between Matthew Phillip Wright and police at the Hoover Dam, and the murder of mob boss Frank Cali at the hands of a QAnon follower. Several social media platforms have been pushing back against QAnon affiliated groups since 2018. Reddit banned several QAnon groups from its platform in 2018 for inciting violence, harassment, and the dissemination of personal information. In July of this year Apple pulled the very popular app “QDrops” from the App Store after it learned more about the conspiracy theory. On July 21, 2020 Twitter announced that it was banning over 7,000 QAnon accounts for breaking its rules around platform manipulation, misinformation and harassment. This is the strongest action yet against QAnon, and Twitter stated that it would no longer recommend QAnon accounts and content, stop such content from appearing in trends and search, and would block QAnon internet links. (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/qanon-groups-have-millions-members-facebook-documents-show-n1236317). In July TikTok disabled the two most popular QAnon hashtags on its platform. But Facebook is the elephant in the room when it comes to the spread of QAnon. It removed a few accounts and groups in May for “suspected coordinated inauthentic behavior” ahead of the 2020 presidential election. This week Facebook announced that it will restrict QAnon (and other right-wing groups) and will no longer recommend that users join groups supporting it. Short of an outright ban, Facebook said it will only remove groups and accounts outright if they discuss potential violence. Facebook said it is not banning QAnon because the group does not meet rigorous criteria for the platform to designate it a “dangerous organization.” But it is expanding this policy to address the movement because it has “demonstrated significant risks to public safety.” (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-08-19/facebook-bans-some-but-not-all-qanon-groups-accounts ). So for now, QAnon will continue to proliferate on Facebook and Instagram (owned by Facebook). As one account is shut down others pop up somewhere else on the internet, and this is the key to its growth.  There is a lot more to the QAnon story. Who is this mysterious Q character? How did the QAnon conspiracy theory explode in just a few short years? Who believes in this stuff and why? Most importantly, why doesn’t President Trump distance himself from QAnon, and how much influence will it really have on the upcoming election? From its humble beginnings as a scheme to garner internet traffic, millions of like-minded people have found a rallying point in QAnon.
For a deep dive into the origins of QAnon and who the mysterious Q may be, I refer you to articles referenced above by the NBC News investigative team and the article from The Atlantic. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American Public Health Should be Above Politics. Was a Line Crossed in Favor of Black Lives Matter Protests?8/15/2020  As was established in the last blog post, public health authorities have broad powers under the constitution to restrict individual liberty to combat a health crisis. However, these restrictions must be applied fairly, without prejudice to content or viewpoint. Black Lives Matter protests have been taking place across the country for over two months, in apparent violation of social distancing and public gathering restrictions. Have the public health authorities crossed the “neutral” line? In the wake of the George Floyd killing by Minneapolis police, demonstrations against police brutality have erupted across the country. Black Lives Matter protests took place in cities large and small. This became real to me when protests shut down Highway 101 running through the middle of Santa Rosa, on the evening of June 5. Unable to make it home on the 101, I took an alternative route through the city’s downtown. I soon ran into the middle of a group of people marching through the city chanting “Black Lives Matter”. The protest was peaceful and I never felt threatened. Several nights of protests followed in the downtown area. Some looting and vandalism did occur late at night, long after most of the peaceful protestors had left. All this got me thinking “what about the public health orders put in place to stop the spread of the coronavirus”? There were orders in place to restrict outdoor gatherings to 100 attendees, as well as social distancing and face covering requirements. I reached out to city and county officials for answers, but never received any. My city was not alone. Major protests and marches were taking place in Milwaukee, New York, Washington DC, Seattle, Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and in hundreds of cities across our country. COVID-19 was no longer public health enemy number one. It had been replaced by police brutality and systemic racism.  Many public officials took part in the protests, including the mayors of Minneapolis and Washington DC, chiefs of police, including the one in my city, and the Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy. But most of these protests were taking place in cities which restricted public gatherings to 50-100 people. Social distancing and facial covering mandates were in place as well. This is why shouts of “liberal hypocrisy” started to be heard (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/06/conservatives-charge-liberals-with-social-distancing-hypocrisy-304435). Opponents of New Jersey Governor Murphy claimed that he was violating his own executive order by picking winners and losers by blurring the line between protests “worthy of participation and those deserving prosecution”(https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nj-governor-questioned-about-attending-rallies-during-stay-at-home-order  Apparently not all protests are created equal. Conservatives have pointed out that lockdown protests during April and May were prohibited by public health officials because they violated social distancing and public gathering restrictions. But the protests against police brutality, which began in late May, appear to be condoned by the public health community. Even though these recent protests have occurred as many cities began lifting stay-at-home restrictions, and many of the protestors wore face coverings, there is much evidence in support of the conservative view. A national group of 1,288 health professionals signed the “Open letter advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic”. The open letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jyfn4Wd2i6bRi12ePghMHtX3ys1b7K1A/view) states “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue”, and “in addressing demonstrations against white supremacy, our first statement must be one of unwavering support for those who would dismantle, support, or reform racist institutions”. The open letter further states that “as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States”. The open letter also spells out why the Black Lives Matter protests are different than the earlier protests against stay-at-home orders.  The American Public Health Association declared systemic racism a public health crisis at the beginning of June. Soon after, Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan, along with cities in several other states, have declared systemic racism to be a public health emergency or crisis (https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/health-equity/racism-and-health/racism-declarations). One of the key justifications for these declarations is that COVID-19 has affected communities of color at a disproportionate rate. I think that the public health community is justified in shining a light on systemic racism. It has clearly led to many inequities in our society, particularly in areas of housing, education and health outcomes. According to recent polls, most Americans support the views of the Black Lives Matter protests (https://news.gallup.com/poll/316106/two-three-americans-support-racial-justice-protests.aspx).
But, is there legal justification to favor one form of protest over another? Probably not. But that’s for the courts to decide. Even though public health officials have broad constitutional powers during health emergencies, there are limits. Consider this: people are shot and killed on a daily basis in several of our major cities, namely Detroit and Chicago. Why not just declare public health emergencies in these cities and ban guns outright? Gun violence is clearly a public health crisis, and public health officials have broad authority under such conditions. Unfortunately, this won’t happen. The gun culture in American is as deeply rooted as is systemic racism, and constitutionalists wouldn’t allow it. Gun violence is another epidemic that needs to be tackled, but that’s an issue for another day. Mass gatherings of people, regardless of how righteous the cause, increases the risk of spreading COVID-19. As we have seen, many people in public health feel that getting the message out about systemic racism is worth the risk. The early restrictions put in place to stop the spread of COVID-19 were backed up by science. It appears that by allowing Black Lives Matter protests to continue, science has taken a backseat to political considerations. I’m afraid that many public health officials have undermined their credibility by messaging that certain behaviors can be sanctioned if the cause is just. Public health should be above politics. You may feel that public health officials are justified in favoring the Black Lives Matter protests. That’s for you, and perhaps the courts to decide. But what is clear, is that the partisan divide over the coronavirus response has widened. Messaging about actions to defeat the virus has become more confused, and trust in the Public Health System may have been diminished. This certainly doesn’t help at a time when a united, clear, and coherent plan to deal with the pandemic is needed. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. I just hope that the public continues to listen to and heed the advice of our public health experts. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American |
AuthorThe Armchair American. 
Archives
June 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed