Remaking America


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do not want to upset anyone with this thread nor my post - but I am quite perplexed about the political movement among the Democrats to remake America.   It does appear to me that remaking America amounts to remaking (or perhaps I should say redefining) our Constitution.  For example - the DOJ usurping State authority over education and dealing with parents that demonstrate against the local boards of education as "Domestic Terrorist".  Here is a Fox News link: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-biden-attorney-general-making-family-rich-calling-you-domestic-terrorist

I realize that Fox News is very biased but there are questions brought up that deserve answers - I would like the answers to the questions asked not accusations towards those asking the questions.

But I have another problem.  Mostly the political right claims that the media (including the Google search engine) filters out the voices of the right and all we can find are the voices on the left.  So lets do a Google search for the Democrat's movement to "Remake America".  You know what - I could not find a single left wing article.  All I found was right wing criticism.  Granted I did not do and exhaustive search - just the first page of links from Google.

From our prophets - mostly what I understand is that we should be politically active and elect honorable and honest leaders.    I would so much love to support honorable and honest leaders but I am having great difficulty finding any.  This is not new for me - I have had this problem for over 50 years.  When I was working for the Defense Department I ran into a lady I dated in High School working at the White House under Nixon (with all his problems).  I expressed my concerns and she suggested that I run for a political office.  My problem is that I have very poor leadership skills.  I do not work well with others - especially when they struggle getting any thing I asked - done.  My wife has great leadership skills and whatever she asks (delegates)  always gets accomplished.  However, this thread is not about me and my failures - rather I am looking for anything political I can support - and in 50 years and despite the encouragement from our prophets - I have failed to find anything political I trust and support.   Any suggestions?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, here's the National School Boards Association letter to the president:  https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf   This is where the "protesting parents should be considered domestic terrorists" thing comes from.  9 pages of whiny fearful grandstanding, with a lot of examples of protests, and maybe one or two instances of death threats or actual violence. 

The DOJ's memo in response is here: https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download.  It's only one page long, and anyone that can muster up fifteen seconds of attention, shouldn't be able to find a problem with it.

"While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views."

If anyone disagrees with that statement, or anything else in that DOJ memo, it would be cool to hear what and why.   I mean, last year was full of us trying to draw a legitimate line between peaceful protests and violent riots.  It'd be nice if we could apply a tenth of the effort we made there, on our people here.  

Before we start throwing shade against the other side, maybe we need to get ourselves figured out?  "Peaceful protests are good, threats and intimidation and violence should not be tolerated" should be our mantra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, here's the National School Boards Association letter to the president:  https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf   This is where the "protesting parents should be considered domestic terrorists" thing comes from.  9 pages of whiny fearful grandstanding, with a lot of examples of protests, and maybe one or two instances of death threats or actual violence. 

The DOJ's memo in response is here: https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download.  It's only one page long, and anyone that can muster up fifteen seconds of attention, shouldn't be able to find a problem with it.

"While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views."

If anyone disagrees with that statement, or anything else in that DOJ memo, it would be cool to hear what and why.   I mean, last year was full of us trying to draw a legitimate line between peaceful protests and violent riots.  It'd be nice if we could apply a tenth of the effort we made there, on our people here.  

Before we start throwing shade against the other side, maybe we need to get ourselves figured out?  "Peaceful protests are good, threats and intimidation and violence should not be tolerated" should be our mantra.

What I'm seeing online comes down to "people fearing that this can be interpreted in such a fashion so allow school boards to call the FBI down on whistleblowers and others looking to root out actual corruption and incompetence". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ironhold said:

What I'm seeing online comes down to "people fearing that this can be interpreted in such a fashion so allow school boards to call the FBI down on whistleblowers and others looking to root out actual corruption and incompetence". 

As I understand, what happens at a school board meeting is the jurisdiction of the state including state law and law enforcement.    If there are threats or acts of violence it is up to the state and state courts to resolve the issue.   @Just_A_Guy is obviously a better source  than an engineer and can explain it better.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, there’s such an alphabet soup of agencies involved here that it’s hard to know what real, tangible action might result from this letter.

In most other eras of American history, the letter as-worded would be innocuous (except insofar as it points out to a vast slough of federal agencies whose existence wouldn’t even have been contemplated sixty years ago).  Of *course* threats are bad, and should be investigated.  And frankly, there *is* a certain stripe of conservative that seems to have an affinity for getting into physical altercations, and threatening more of the same.  We’ve had a few of those kinds of folks on this very board, in the past; and a high school principal/former bishop in my ward whose school recently drew the attention and public scorn of Eric Moutsos has run up against a bit of that himself.  And January 6, while certainly overblown, casts a shadow that is very long indeed.

That said:  it seems these allegations of threats are primarily anecdotal in nature.  I don’t know that, statistically, it’s an issue worth the FBI’s concerted attention; especially in light of the kinds of things they’ve largely let pass over the last two years and some spectacular failures of late that raise serious questions about their overall competence.  I long for the good old days when the main thing the FBI fought was crime—and when they were actually somewhat good at it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And January 6, while certainly overblown, casts a shadow that is very long indeed.

I think this is at the heart of the DOJ involvement. The "stop the steal" crowd was dismissed as delusional sore losers. But then some of those delusional sore losers attacked the Capitol Building and tried to stop Congress from carrying out their Constitutional duty. And the "certain stripe of conservative" that participated in and defended the things that happened that day are the same ones harassing teachers and school boards now. It makes sense for the feds to treat them as a serious threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I think this is at the heart of the DOJ involvement. The "stop the steal" crowd was dismissed as delusional sore losers. But then some of those delusional sore losers attacked the Capitol Building and tried to stop Congress from carrying out their Constitutional duty. And the "certain stripe of conservative" that participated in and defended the things that happened that day are the same ones harassing teachers and school boards now. It makes sense for the feds to treat them as a serious threat.

We were all some what surprised with what happened last January.  However, as more information and videos are released we find that the large number of demonstrators  were not violent - also there were numbers of FBI undercover agents involved and the actual numbers have yet to be released so effect cannot be determined beyond speculation - which is mostly what is being reported.  It was difficult just to get the FBI to admit any involvement.    There are also claims that left wing extremists were also involved.  There are some that claim that the same leftist organizations that attacked police over the summer were the most involved in the attacks which took place.  It is interesting to note that during the Russian revolution that similar tactics were used by the communists to politically divide the their opposition political parties. 

But I think you have a point - that threats of violence could well be involved with education board opposition.  I agree that parents can get a little nuts.  A number of years ago I was watching a little league base ball game involving one of my children when a parent of another kid on my son's team got upset with a 16 year old ump.  This guy stormed on to the field and demanded the ump step down and began pushing this very scared kid.  Myself and several other guys immediately entered the diamond to stop this very angry dad.  Things very quickly turned violent and the police were called.  By time the police got there; heads had cooled and the only action taken was to send the dad home.  But this story did not end here - one week later this hot head nut stormed into Alta View Hospital (in my neighborhood) and killed a nurse with a shot gun - he was after the doctor that was not there.   This made national news - readers may remember this.   But is what happens at a local education board meeting really an FBI problem that falls under federal jurisdiction?   If anyone believes so - I would like to know where in the constitution this is clear.  I am also concerned that the term "Domestic Terrorism" is not well defined.  For example I do not understand the deafferents between an act of violence and an act of terror.  

A possible concern is that there is a Nazi type of power grab at the federal level - which is a concern that is dividing our country.  I am interested in your opinion.

 

The Traveler   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

But is what happens at a local education board meeting really an FBI problem that falls under federal jurisdiction?   If anyone believes so - I would like to know where in the constitution this is clear.  I am also concerned that the term "Domestic Terrorism" is not well defined.  For example I do not understand the deafferents between an act of violence and an act of terror.  

Acts of terror are typically motivated by some sort of ideology (political, religious, philosophical). In this sense, the protestors who turned violent on 1/6 are terrorists. I don't know of any school board meetings or protests that have actually turned violent, but I know that there's been a lot of verbal abuse hurled at educators, as well as death threats and threats of violence. This kind of intimidation could be viewed as terrorism, because it's only a matter of time before the threats turn to action.

I definitely think that this is sticky territory from a Constitutional standpoint. I may not agree with the parents that are ranting about what I consider to be nonsense, but I respect their freedom of speech so long as their rhetoric doesn't turn violent.

Quote

A possible concern is that there is a Nazi type of power grab at the federal level - which is a concern that is dividing our country.  I am interested in your opinion.

The Traveler   

My opinion is that the 1/6 protest was an act of domestic terrorism and that there is an alarming number of Americans who refuse to acknowledge that. It is also my opinion that there's ample potential for election controversy in 2024, and maybe even in next year's midterms. A significant percentage of our population doesn't trust our democratic institutions, and there are elected members of Congress who share that distrust. I believe that if future elections don't go their way, they'll cry foul and get violent. I hope I'm wrong, but after 1/6 I'm reluctant to treat far-right zealots like harmless windbags.

Additionally, I believe that there's a strong political correlation between the "stop the steal" movement and the more vocal elements of the anti-mandate movement. This is their biggest shot against Biden so far. Of course, lost in the discourse is the fact that there's currently a legal precedent that supports vaccine mandates. It's over 100 years old and I imagine it'll be challenged sooner rather than later, but the fact remains that using mandates to protect public health is not a new thing in the US, and neither is the controversy around it. I don't think our government is overreaching. I think we've become very divided and polarized as a nation, and I don't think that division is sustainable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

[1]Acts of terror are typically motivated by some sort of ideology (political, religious, philosophical). In this sense, the protestors who turned violent on 1/6 are terrorists. I don't know of any school board meetings or protests that have actually turned violent, but I know that there's been a lot of verbal abuse hurled at educators, as well as death threats and threats of violence. This kind of intimidation could be viewed as terrorism, because it's only a matter of time before the threats turn to action.

I definitely think that this is sticky territory from a Constitutional standpoint. I may not agree with the parents that are ranting about what I consider to be nonsense, but I respect their freedom of speech so long as their rhetoric doesn't turn violent.

My opinion is that the 1/6 protest was an act of domestic terrorism and that there is an alarming number of Americans who refuse to acknowledge that. It is also my opinion that there's ample potential for election controversy in 2024, and maybe even in next year's midterms. A significant percentage of our population doesn't trust our democratic institutions, and there are elected members of Congress who share that distrust. I believe that if future elections don't go their way, they'll cry foul and get violent. I hope I'm wrong, but after 1/6 I'm reluctant to treat far-right zealots like harmless windbags.

Additionally, I believe that there's a strong political correlation between the "stop the steal" movement and the more vocal elements of the anti-mandate movement. This is their biggest shot against Biden so far. [2] Of course, lost in the discourse is the fact that there's currently a legal precedent that supports vaccine mandates. It's over 100 years old and I imagine it'll be challenged sooner rather than later, but the fact remains that using mandates to protect public health is not a new thing in the US, and neither is the controversy around it. I don't think our government is overreaching. [3] I think we've become very divided and polarized as a nation, and I don't think that division is sustainable. 

I agree with, like, 75% of this; but the context we’re omitting is that nearly identical tactics have been widely adopted by leftist groups for going on ten years now—not only Antifa/BLM-related riots and physical assaults, but attacks on federal and state government buildings that have significantly disrupted the work of the entities that met in those buildings.  This isn’t just “whataboutism”—when you’ve got the Brown Shirts and the Red Front brawling it out in the streets, and *all* the newspapers and radio shows are saying it’s exclusively the fault of those dastardly Red Fronters even though you’ve seen the Brown Shirts in action too—at some point one starts wondering whether there’s a Goebbels pulling some of the strings; and you wonder what else he and his associates are planning.

Even this hand-wringing about questioning electoral results—yes, it’s socially and civically toxic; but have we forgotten that others spent four years attacking the 2016 election as somehow fraudulent?  That many from that same side even now condemn the constitutionally-ordained electoral college as “illegitimate”?  Yes, the former American value of accepting electoral results without question and submitting to the authority of elected officials we disagree with is pretty well shot at this point; we’re over the Rubicon now and in a heap of trouble, and Trump and his acolytes had a yuge role in piling on the straws that ultimately broke the camel’s back.  But this suggestion that it’s exclusively or even primarily the Trumplings’ fault is, again, the kind of “me-or-your-own-lyin’-eyes-ism” that evokes the agendas of others who told “big lies” in ages past.  

2.  I deal with some of Jacobson’s distinctions here; and let’s bear in mind that the Jacobson majority was joined by a certain SCOTUS justice who would later approve forced sterilizations of disabled people on the grounds that “three generations of imbeciles is enough”.  In terms of evolving social values, we may as well appeal to the moral precedent of Dred Scott as Jacobson.

3.  Absolutely, 100% agree.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2021 at 4:45 PM, Traveler said:

There are also claims that left wing extremists were also involved. 

Proof.  Not claims, proof.   John Earle Sullivan, AKA Jayden X, AKA Activist John, was a BLM organizer, founder of Insurgence USA, and Gonzo journalist, who was inside the capitol that day.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Earle_Sullivan#Participation_in_the_2021_Capitol_attack

He was so high-profile, that all the left wing extremists started disowning him and calling him a double-agent after he began selling his footage of the Ashley Babbit shooting.  He might have figured he could use the left to accomplish his anti-government ends, but any attempt to paint him as a center or right winger are simply laughable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share