James M. Redwine

Donald Trump

A New World Resolution

by Leave a Comment

A new year is rapidly approaching. Hope for a better world is evidenced by universal blame placing, always onto someone else. Perhaps Jeffrey Epstein, or Donald Trump or Lane Kiffin or the idiot driving slowly in the passing lane. Or as Jimmy Buffett finally admitted in Margaritaville, “It was his own fault”.

One thing each of us believes is it is never our fault. Yet, in a republic, the United States for example, it is the fault of all citizens since we either choose or allow to remain in office our representatives. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth may have ordered Admiral Frank Bradley to carry out Commander in Chief Donald Trump’s order to kill the people on the alleged drug boat on September 02, 2025, but in America the President represents all of us. In the court of world opinion, each American violated our Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Due Process clauses as contained within the New World Resolutions of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Our Founders were well aware of the irony contained within those famous New World Resolutions, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”. They knew that thousands of years of human history belied such a reality. What real truth they knew to be self-evident was that power does not corrupt humans, it enables them to be corrupt. The words were aspirational, not factual. The Constitution of the United States designed a framework for a system of government in which the natural inclination of humans to abuse power is sublimated to the competing powers of the majority who would abide by Due Process of Law.

If the eighty-one people we have killed in the Venezuelan boats were drug runners, there are well established procedures for determining those facts and for dealing with each situation. The U.S.A. has the most powerful military on earth. Even if the Venezuelan government was sponsoring those boats, its military is impotent against ours.

Our aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers and aircraft can and do monitor every craft that comes within our United States territorial waters. We have the ability and authority to force any such drug boat or fishing boat, to stand down and be searched without danger to American personnel or equipment.

We could safely and thoroughly search such boats and vet their sailors as to drugs or other illegal contents. If such criminal intent against America were to be evidenced, the occupants could be arrested and taken before a court in the United States or a world authorized legal body. Any drugs could be confiscated, used as evidence and later destroyed and the drug runners imprisoned.

Such a procedure is what our Founders would have demanded from King George III. It is called Due Process. As the folk singer Phil Ochs sang in his song, Is There Anybody Here:

♫Is there anybody here
Who thinks that following the orders takes away the blame?
Is there anybody here
Who wouldn’t mind to murder by another name?♫

We Americans who claim to be a light to the world should shout STOP! when our representatives justify killing others without affording them the rights we demand for ourselves. America was born in 1776 and should not lose its aspirational soul after only 249 years. For as Phil Ochs also said in his song, ♫This country is too young to die♫. America today can re-pledge our “Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor” to the hopes our Founders knew had not yet been made possible but that they and we should resolve to make reality. Due process should be our talisman, not just our hope.

 

You Shall Know the Truth & the Truth Will Set You Free (John 8:32)

by Leave a Comment

Jesus was born in Palestine and did much of his teaching there about 2,000 years ago. The words Jesus spoke were so offensive to the chief Jewish scribes and priests they called upon the Romans to crucify him even though he had committed no crime except, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place” (Luke 23:5). Actually he was just calling for peace and justice.

The Chief Pharisee, Joseph Caiaphas, and his ruling Judaic council charged Jesus with heresy and asked the Romans to try him. The Roman rulers, Pontius Pilate and King Herod, could find no fault in his behavior and planned to release him. Pilate then called together the chief priests and the religious rulers and the populace, to tell them Jesus would be released. “But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified” (Luke 22:6-25). So, Jesus was crucified for expressing views those in power in the Sanhedrin found offensive. Those eye witness accounts as reported in the Bible come from the famous authors of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all of whom were Jewish. Ergo, the knee jerk response of contemporary society and Trump’s White House that they were being anti-semitic would lie fallow.

The Romans, much like those today in American academia who caved to the financial threats from the Trump Administration, just washed their hands of the matter (Matthew 27:11-26). However, the shame of shirking the most sacred duty of a college, that is, preserving the free flow of ideas, cannot be so easily cleansed.

Another Palestinian activist, Mahmoud Khalil, who advocates in America today for peace and justice in Palestine and Israel has not been charged with any crime, but is currently imprisoned in America for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, principally during his tenure at Columbia University. He was arrested by the power of President Donald Trump’s Executive Branch that disagrees with Khalil’s calls for peace in Gaza and an end to the slaughter by the Zionists of over 50,000 Palestinians, mainly civilians. Khalil’s peaceful support for the resistance of the Palestinian people from 1948 until now to the military actions and occupations by Israel in Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Yemen is at odds with the positions of the Trump and Zionist Israeli administrations.

The myopic view of Israel’s Zionistic actions over the past seventy-seven years is reminiscent of lessons from Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. Just as a narcissistic ruler is conned into parading naked before an adoring crowd until an innocent child exposes his vanity, Presidents Biden and Trump find no fault with the Zionists in Israel. That is the very purpose of the First Amendment, to expose the truth.

When our government will brook no dissent nor even consider opposing views, great harm and even greater injustice may occur. Protests and free speech in a non-violent academic atmosphere are vital to preserving our democracy. Just as our Founders feared, a silenced majority leads to tyranny from a minority.

Many Jewish people at Columbia University, and in much of the rest of the world, agree with Khalil or, at a minimum, believe he has the right to peaceably, publicly express his views. In America, Free Speech is not anti-semitic or pro-Palestinian; it is an essential element to preserving our democracy. As the Jewish and Roman rulers of 2,000 years ago discovered, power abused can lead to rights denied and even a country being destroyed. 1948 might have been a new beginning for Israel, but it may not survive the Zionist dream of total conquest of its neighbors in the Middle East while being abetted by our government, much of the media and academia.

The First Amendment to our Constitution is first because our Founders knew it is vital to democracy. When our institutions sell their principles for money or succumb to fear of speaking the truth because they may be branded anti-semitic, we may eventually reap the whirlwind, perhaps even a nuclear one.

You Say You Want A Revolution

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The Beatles sang:

♪ You say you want a revolution
…
You say you’ll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You’d better free your mind instead ♪

I do not know why those British songsters were singing about changing America’s Constitution during the Viet Nam War. Perhaps they were just selling a song or perhaps they felt it was a return to 1776. Regardless, today in the United States it seems a lot of Americans seek to remake America in their own image and the quickest way is a revolution. Of course, not much thought may have gone into what a revolution would truly mean in 2025 et. seq.

On the other hand, James Madison of the small body and the gigantic brain gave the written word to the revolution he had just participated in and the possible future ones he wanted to prevent by designing a United States Constitution based on a theory that all humans seek to expand their power as much as they are allowed. Therefore, for a democracy to continue existing, the bedrock of our country had to be a government made up of separate functions controlled by competing separate and equal powers. As a people we have had a history of teetering from side to side with only occasionally tipping completely over to any one branch gaining too much power.

The Civil War broke out because all three branches chose conflict over compromise on the issues of slavery and the human rights of African Americans. On other visceral issues, such as Native American rights, Women’s right to vote, use of alcohol or marijuana or wars such as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we have managed to let the struggling of the separate governmental powers find a way to come out in an acceptable equilibrium.

We have had countless opportunities to lose our democracy but have eventually stepped back from the brink. The United States Supreme Court has taken more than one foray into excessive power, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). During Chief Justice Earl Warren’s reign (1953-1969) the Court’s ultra-liberal rulings had much of the public up in arms. There were even billboards on the highways calling for Warren’s impeachment.

And the Legislative Branch has had its attempts at being the conscience of America also. For example, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy set himself up to be the ultimate determiner of what a “true American” was. During the era of “McCarthyism” in the 1940’s and 1950’s the American public generally bought into his “Red Scare” tactics until the facts overcame his allegations.

But it has usually been the Executive Branch where the abuse of power has been the most obvious. The most salient example was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was president from 1933 until his death during his fourth term in 1945. Even though a great majority of both Congress and the American people objected to American involvement in WWII, Roosevelt manipulated the United States into the war. Of course, he had the aggression of Japan to help his argument.

It was Roosevelt’s long-term in office and some of his unpopular policies that brought about the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids anyone from serving more than two terms as President. Although some supporters of President Donald Trump have advanced the possibility of an exception to this amendment for President Trump. Such moves on behalf of Donald Trump and the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court are raising concerns among anti-Trumpers. There exists the possibility that neither the Supreme Court nor the Legislature may provide a proper balance for our democracy as both may be biased in favor of President Trump, especially as about one-half of the electorate has supported him and his policies.

While a revolution may be extremely unlikely, so have been numerous other shifts in power in America throughout our history. There is no need yet to call for extraordinary action by any branch nor from the news media or the public. However, it is the fabric of our democracy that may be being tested once again. There is no harm in remaining true to the wisdom of our nation’s charter and there could be harm from failing to reference it.

Photo by Peg Redwine

70 X 7

by Leave a Comment

Peter eventually made it to the rank of saint; although he may have paid a heavy price for it. Peter was uncouth but Jesus stated he was the foundation of Jesus’ church. According to the New Testament, Jesus and Peter had many one-on-one conversations about theological matters, including forgiveness. In Matthew, Ch. 18, vs. 15-21, Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.”

In other words, both Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are clothed with a robe of get out of jail free cards based on our Constitution’s Presidential Pardon Power. Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, is not correct; America was not founded on Biblical principles but on principles of the European Enlightenment. Its army was led by George Washington who owned slaves and its Constitution was drafted by fellow slave owner James Madison who was Washington’s staunchest supporter. Washington’s physical presence and Madison’s great mental prowess were two of the main building blocks of our country. The President’s Pardon Power was inserted into the Constitution, probably, because most of the Founding Fathers who had a foundation in the history of the monarchies of Europe expected George Washington to become America’s first king and the Pardon Power was most likely a vestige of the European “Divine Right of Kings” to have the “Final Say” in matters calling for mercy. Instead, we might seek guidance from our Founding Fathers and such other secular authorities as Professor Joseph Campbell who taught mythology and literature at Sarah Lawrence College for many years. Unfortunately, Professor Campbell passed away in 1987, but in his 1972 book Myths to Live By at pages 188-189 Campbell wrote:

…. “The modern Western concept of a legal code is not of a list of unassailable divine edicts {such as the Code of Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments for examples} but of a rationally contrived, evolving compilation of statutes, shaped by fallible human beings in council, to realize rationally recognized social (and therefore temporal) aims. We understand that our laws are not divinely ordained; and we know also that no laws of any people on earth ever were.”

Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump must navigate America’s Constitution where Article II, §2, clause 1 provides, “The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Pardons are granted by democratically elected Presidents. Over the years thousands of pardons have been granted. President Biden has pardoned his own son after repeatedly and publicly stating he would not. Donald Trump may pardon numerous January 06, 2020 defendants after repeatedly and publicly stating he would. Some people find both Presidents’ actions repugnant. If so, they may work to change the people-made Constitution or work to elect somebody else or impeach whomever the country has elected. After all, our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a democracy based on free will.

 

Existential Threats

by Leave a Comment

An existential risk, in general, is one that could cause the collapse of human civilization, such as nuclear war. An existential risk to democracy is one that could bring about the collapse of individual liberty, such as fascism. This is the theme of The New Republic magazine cover that morphs Donald Trump’s face into Hitler’s. It is, also, the theme of numerous politicians and cable news commentators who have called Trump an existential threat to our American democracy and called for him to be stopped at all costs. Twenty-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks gave up his own life to try.

In like manner, many politicians and cable news commentators have asserted Joe Biden is corrupt in his personal life and, as president, he has “weaponized” his Justice Department against his political opponents and must be ousted from office. He has been demonized as “Crooked Joe” and vilified as a threat to our democracy due to his advancing age. Although many of us also feel Father Time creeping around.

Some supporters of Biden and some supporters of Trump are indistinguishable in their vociferously clanging brass, or as Ecclesiastes, Ch. 9, v. 17 might say their “… shouting of ruler(s) among fools.” What we need instead are, “The words of the wise heard in quiet ….”

But America may have been blessed with the curse of a near miss on July 13, 2024 when former President Trump somehow survived an assassination attempt and gave both Trump and Biden and their supporters one of life’s greatest and rarest gifts, another chance. And America, itself, would be the beneficiary if we do not squander it.

Biden and Trump are neither one dogs but they might want to reflect on some more wisdom from Ecclesiastes, “But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion,” Ch. 9, v. 4. In other words, even though both men are old they still have the opportunity to go out like lions if they choose wise leadership over foolish rhetoric and actions. Instead of speaking and acting like petulant children they should follow First Corinthians, Ch. 13, v. 11, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” And all it took was one near miss for both of them to have the chance to finally grow up.

Former President Trump is the one who was shot and survived, but Biden is intrinsically entwined by circumstances with Trump’s fate and fortune. Much like many paired adversaries, the fate of one is the fate of both. And Biden is being “shot at” by his own Democrat Party that is pressuring him to simply give up “for the good of the country.” Of course, if instead of standing up and fighting Biden steps aside, whoever replaces him will come from the ranks of those who have also ascribed to the assertions that Trump is an existential threat. Regardless, for now both Biden and Trump are the candidates and just as all of us, they have had that ever present gnawing thought in the middle of the night, “Why didn’t I do or say that differently? Oh, how I wish I had the chance to change what I said or did.” Well, Trump and Biden do now have that chance. They both, even as elderly public servants, have been given the golden gift of an unexpected chance to re-make their personal and public personas. They could take their guidance from that great philosopher, William Shakespeare, whose Prince Hal put off juvenile behavior and clothed himself in royal responsibility. As King Henry, the onetime feckless rogue made himself into a great leader of England upon his father’s death and astonished his people:

“… he (Prince Hal) may be more wondered at by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapors that did seem to strangle him.
”Henry IV, Part I, scene II.

Of course, one person will win in November, but whoever the candidates may be they both can rise above the current ad hominem viciousness and provide our country with hope, guidance, wisdom and leadership. Most of us will not get a reprieve from life for our sins and bad judgments. But occasionally life does shoot-at-someone-and miss. Say a cancer diagnosis that turns out to take years instead of days or an unexpected heart attack that we survive. How we respond determines how we expend the rest of our lives and how our family and friends evaluate whether we are honorable in our second chance behavior.

When it comes to Donald and Joe, they now, even at or near 80, have the totally unexpected chance to modify their behavior, and in doing so, help save their country. Such a rare treasure should not be squandered on the shoals of egotistical ambition. Perhaps when each of them awakes in the middle of the night now they will say to themselves, “Thank you for this once in a life-time totally unexpected opportunity.” Then each might become the leader even their opponent did not expect.

Equal Protection

by Leave a Comment

CNN reports that Americans’ confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court:

“[I]s at its lowest ebb in terms of public opinion in the history of Gallop polling.”

CNN attributes much of this lack of faith in the competence and integrity of the Court to the overruling of Roe vs. Wade in 2022. Then, even three members of the Court publicly dissented and accused the six-member majority of playing politics. Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor dissented in Dobbs v. Jackson that overruled Roe and stated:

“Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law.” 

The essence of the dissenters’ warning was that the majority was denying options to America’s female population in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A similar issue is the gravamen of the current issue before the Supreme Court in the matter of whether the 14th Amendment can be used to deny Donald Trump the right to run for president. Or, as is more important, whether the federal or each state’s government can deny American citizens the right to choose whether to vote for him.

People on both sides of Trump’s possible candidacy raise the alarm that our democracy is in peril if Trump is or is not allowed to run. Many who lost confidence in the Court over the denial of a “Woman’s right to choose” are sounding the siren against Trump’s choice to run. And many who celebrated the loss of Roe’s protections of a woman’s options in maternity matters, are up-in-arms at the prospect of denying Trump the right to run.

What Americans are saying by their low opinions of the Supreme Court validates both sides’ fears that our democracy may be teetering. For the essence of democracy is freedom of choice. When the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the matter of Colorado’s position that its voters cannot be trusted to make their own choices, we will all be watching. Perhaps we will find that regardless of how the Court decides Trump’s fate, the canary in the coal mine of democracy will be at risk. Because we all believe that everyone should have the freedom to choose what we do. And our government’s duty, especially the Supreme Court’s, is to guarantee no one has the power to deny others their right to make a different choice. Nowhere is that bedrock of our democracy more crucial than in free and open elections.