“Passion without understanding can be (usually is) cruel, ruthless.”

I am not sure where the quote above came from. I found it in the last few days while I was trying in vain to organize the piles of notes that I am always making on impulse. It may have been simply based on part of a quote seen or heard elsewhere and then added to by me. It may be something that came to me and I wrote down while focusing on something else. I suspect I may well have already thrown it or parts of it out in writing before. But it seemed to speak to a lot of things over the last few days. I have spent most of my time the last four days or so actually involved in “life” while taking in and digesting the reactions, over-reactions, and under-reactions flying through the atmosphere.

I will begin by saying it appears that a great many have learned nothing over the last few years in regard to what they first see or hear about anything. I can think of hardly anything, certainly in the last five-plus years, that was as first presented by “reports” or even video. That is surely true of video that is first filtered through the media. I would think that even the naive would understand by now that it will be edited and written for effect, not factual accuracy.

I will next begin (can there really be two beginnings?) by making the required notice of my respect for law and that all who broke the law on January 6 be held completely accountable. Certainly more accountable than any who for the last several months have unlawfully destroyed billions of dollars of private property, have contributed to at least 30 deaths (and that is a loose count at best), have assaulted hundreds, and have held and vandalized both federal and state government buildings. As I recall that violence was either dismissed or openly encouraged, if not praised by the political “left”. Many who claim the political “right” were not nearly as loud then as they have been since the 6^th.

There should be anger at those who changed what was a lawful exercise of a free people who deeply felt they had a just grievance into a criminal act. Anger is an easy emotion. It is for the most part a lazy one. It almost always makes one feel good (even if upset) and usually quite superior. It is often justified but that doesn’t negate what I have just said about it. It should be a motivator but is a damn poor instigator. The response to anger should be a considered, informed, and resonated one, not an angry one.

Because anger is both an easy and lazy emotion is one easily used by the devious. That is true both before and after the 6^th.

After a few days of looking at several sources, I feel certain that the number of Trump supporters present ran well into the hundreds of thousands. I don’t know where to draw the line. There are some with experience in such things in D.C. who put the figure at over a million. We will never know for sure. I can be certain that many do not want it known. But the use of “hundreds of thousands” is a safe term unless one has predetermined to discount it.

I am also sure that those who actually entered the capitol and committed criminal acts would number in the low hundreds, despite the terrible optics. I will again strongly state how much I condemn what was done and how strongly those guilty should be punished. But I don’t plan to do it again. It is an argumentative game of distraction and misdirection I am quite tired of, thank you. It would have been nice if all the violence and destruction of the several months before had been treated the same across the board as well as the political spectrum.

Was that crowd listening to President Trump assembled because of wild, unfounded theories and an intent to overthrow the Congress. Hardly.

The election process has been under an open and obvious assault for at least 10 years. I would contend that it began in earnest 10 years before that when electronic voting was first approved in 2001. But it certainly has been on full display over the last decade. It is through immigration and the electoral system that many “red” areas and states have been turned blue. Ballot harvesting was just one of the techniques practiced and perfected in California to be spread nation-wide.

Many have done a good job of going through most of the evidence of digital fraud. And in addition to the technical evidence, there are well over a thousand individuals who have come forward at great risk to themselves, their families, and jobs to detail under oath open violations. But no one has to go that far to have a solid case against the voting in several key states. As valid as they can be, they are technical and like most complicated criminal activities take time to build the complete case and prove.

But I feel there was an easily understood constitutional issue that should have settled it without going that far. All should have known of it by now. And a great deal of the drama we have endured could have been prevented by the Supreme Court actually doing its job in October before the elections took place. There are nine simple words in Article II, “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”, about the selection of electors which should make it clear that judges, governors, secretaries of state, or even the Court itself can’t change the election law regarding the presidency handed down by the legislature of the states. That is exactly what was done in all those states in regard to mail-in ballots, effective dates concerning the election, requirement of valid signatures, and a host of other issues. That affects the legitimacy of the election before a single matter of fraud comes up.

But under the “leadership” of John Roberts, the Court declined to hear that argument concerning multiple changes unconstitutionally made in Pennsylvania. Hearing that and giving a clear ruling could well have prevented the same actions being fulfilled in the other states. But the fact that it wasn’t heard means that there were not four Justices with enough clarity or courage to see that it got to the whole Court.

I grow tired of hearing about those 60-plus times that the Trump position lost in courts proving that the evidence was lacking. There has been very little evidence heard by any court and none at any depth. That is not to make a statement about how much or how convincing the evidence is. That is to say that there has not a decent legal or public review.

I would have hoped that the suggestion of Senator Cruz would have provided at least an opening window to just that. No, it was not grandstanding on his part. It was a step that seriously needed to be made, even if the deck was stacked. The grand-standing has come after the afternoon events of the 6^th. It has come mostly from individuals positioning themselves in front of the media. Those who I had a small amount of respect for are losing it quickly.

I have reviewed President Trump’s words to the crowd more than once. I can find nothing that would have caused what happened. I doubt that most can if fairly heard. I have read the Tweet he sent out before he spoke calling for peaceful behavior and reminding that the GOP was the party of law and order.

I recall an election in 2012 when there were several (15 I believe it was) precincts in one eastern city where not a single vote was counted from Romney and his campaign hardly took note of it. Somehow I believe there are probably a great many Trump voters who appreciate that their candidate would challenge such obvious frauds.

If by some stretch of logic President Trump can be said to have caused a couple of hundred criminals to act as they did, does he get any credit for the hundreds of thousands who were lawful? I suppose not. That hardly fits the narrative most comfortable to those so easily led by an openly biased media.

In my judgment, far more damage has been done to the electoral process, the Constitution, and our system as a whole by an administration that began spying on a Trump campaign before its candidate had even gotten the nomination. That is not to mention an eight-year-long period of using the IRS and other federal agencies as weapons against political opponents and, yes, even the compliant media. If you can point to similar examples in the present administration, you are welcome to try.

We use the terms “right” and “left” a lot describing the political poles in this country. I do as much as anyone. But I would suggest that our divide is better illustrated if we think of Totalitarianism at one end and Liberty at the other. There are a lots of “isms” that fall under the Totalitarian banner and they are rotated in and out from time to time. But they all pretty well boil down to centralized authority. And just because two groups are fighting with each other doesn’t mean they don’t both belong at the same end of the poles. Hitler and Stalin certainly ended up at each other’s throats. But I would recall another example.

Both the “left” and the “right” during the French Revolution were totalitarian in nature. They both felt the right to rule over how other men lived and conducted their lives because of some perceived right or vision that they had. They were simply the same type of dogs chewing on different sides of the same bone. Names such as communist, fascist, socialist, democratic socialist, royalist, progressive, and maybe a dozen more all are bound by the common thread of authoritarianism over others’ lives.

I believe it can be easily claimed that the last four years have been the first time in at least three decades when we actually moved back toward the Liberty end of the poles. That has been hard-fought but is now in reverse. The events of the 6^th by themselves cannot endanger our Constitution. But our reactions to them can.

The legitimate voices of those hundreds of thousands are being drowned out by the criminal acts of a couple of hundred who deserve both our anger and legal punishment. It can be easily argued that such a gathering was a prime target to be used by the unprincipled of either side. And that certainly carries some weight. But does that mean that those hundreds of thousands should stay silent because they might be used? Who should the anger be directed toward?

I have read and listened to serious suggestions that President Trump should be removed from office for what those few did. I have seen it suggested he be barred from any future office. That certainly has a constitutional ring to it doesn’t it? Now the Speaker is insisting on yet another meaningless, unfounded, emotional, and pointless attempt to impeach the president even as he is leaving office. One congressional genius has suggested waiting for the first 100 days of the Biden administration to do it!

If you had any doubts about the goodwill and fair-mindedness of the “opposition”, they should have removed by the open, blatant efforts of that now empowered “left” to silence, not just President Trump but now any who disagrees. I hope some still have a little anger left over for that real tyranny after spilling so much so easily. Rush to join that “cancel culture”. I am sure they will remember you in the midst of the attempted purge that is already in sight.

But when all has cleared, we will still have a deep problem with the integrity of our vital election process. And it will be even more deeply engrained than before. I will again state that this process is the key step in a free, self-governing people giving their consent to be governed. We have protected it poorly.

I have collected several thoughts about our political path from here both as a nation and as individuals. I will try and form those over the next few days or weeks. Right now I have real work to do.

But for now, I will recall another quote, one that I do know the origin of. This goes back a few years and came from a conversation with a rancher and one-time member of the state legislature in Nevada. This was during a time some might remember when another Nevada rancher was under legal siege from the federal government mostly because of a Harry Reid scheme that eventually would control a lot of water heading toward Clark County. When it came time for the government to actually take the man’s cattle, they couldn’t find anyone within a few hundred miles to actually do it for them. They finally were able to hire some out-of-state weekend team roper types to come in and try (That was another cluster deserving of its own story). There were a great number of more local men who showed up on horseback to stand in protest. My friend did not go to the protest but did support it in several ways. I knew his personal feelings about the other rancher involved and made a comment about that. “I have little use for him. He may be a hard-to-get-along-with old son of a bitch who makes some of his own trouble ……. but that’s not the issue.”

There should be white-hot anger about the events of the 6^th. But the issue is if our actions, our resolutions born of that anger, and the passion that comes with it, are based on a genuine understanding of the direction and the purpose of our Republic. They should be a part of our fighting, slugging our way inch by inch back toward the Liberty end of the spectrum instead of racing in the other direction.