Won't Get Fooled Again...?

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Instead of praying we won't get fooled again, we could take a cue from an old proverb:  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The latter necessitates responsibility, reflection and humility that it is easier to be fooled than it is to unravel foolishness. This is even more true if you have thrown your hat behind one person or ideology, believing it is the solution. 

But why do we get fooled? Is it that evil people are lurking everywhere, waiting to deceive us? I don't think so. Yes, there are scam artists. You receive emails alerting you to 'unusual' activity on your bank account with a request for your login banking credentials. While these predators are dangerous, especially to the vulnerable, such as senior citizens confused by technology and still trusting from another age, the dangers they pose seem limited.  Most of us can recognize their cotton candy facade that quickly disintegrates into nothingness. The dangerous types are those who have fooled themselves, believing they embody all that is noble and righteous or, at least, pretend that they do in the public sphere. 

The Covid lockdowns revealed many of these types. They crawled out of the woodwork like termites, eating away at our Constitutional structure. Appointed experts told us exigent circumstances required the suspension of our rights, most notably, the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, religion, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances -all for safety. It was embraced by both sides of the political landscape, but mainly on the left.

Many of us have sighed with deep relief at the recent election, 'smile and grin' at the change all around, but it is our responsibility to "not get fooled again." But how do we do this? Perhaps by identifying a few past termites of both the left and right persuasion wrapped in the American flag. But first, to start us off a quote from Thurgood Marshall, a Supreme Court Justice known for his historic role on the desegregation of schools. “History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.” Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives ‘ Assn. (1989)

During the VP debate, Tim Walz unleashed the oft-quoted phrase 'fire in a theatre.' He seemed pleased demonstrating support for an essential, yet honorable, weapon against dangerous speech. Presumably, he parroted this phrase, not knowing the dark and sordid past of  Schenck v. the United States from whence the phrase came.

In 1917, Schenck, a socialist and pacifist (thus a “lefty”), circulated flyers arguing that the WWI draft violated the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. He was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. The above graphic is the headline from the flyer. Schenck wasn't attempting to 'take down' the government.' He sought to remind both the citizenry and officials that the Constitution was to be 'the greatest bulwark of political liberty' and the draft threatened its foundation. His flyer questioned whom or what benefited financially from US entrance into the war. While Schenck's questioning of the war was considered sedition, the national policy enunciated by President Wilson a mere three years earlier was not. In a message to the nation, Wilson explained neutrality for the looming war was essential to maintain unifying and lasting peace. (August 19, 1914), 

The US Supreme Court upheld Schenck's criminal conviction in March of 1919. reasoning, "No First Amendment right if the congress finds such rhetoric would endanger the country." It was in this context that Oliver Wendell Holmes compared the distribution of leaflets to falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Fifteen years later, the much-decorated war hero General Smedley Butler published his short book 'War is a Racket' (1934) with blistering conclusions that he had often fought on behalf of monied interests. Such sentiments were no longer polemic as many Americans realized the dissident voices of WWI were not falsely shouting 'fire' after all. Timing is everything. For Schenck, it was bad timing, and he served 10 years. The Schenck decision would later be overturned as an impingement of free speech. Walz's handlers surely knew the facts of Schenck (as did any media pundits covering legal issues) but likely hoped the tough stance on 'misinformation' would play well with voters.

Less than ten years later, a new emergency emerged. Poor people were having too many children and draining limited resources. The proposed solution was Eugenics (good birth.) It was developed by Francis Galton, a thoughtful and brilliant individual who made various groundbreaking contributions - just not this one. Influenced by the work of his cousin Charles Darwin, the Eugenics theory aimed for better human livestock by selecting the right people to breed while preventing the wrong ones from doing so. As it was unlikely that selected victims would readily submit to sterilization, State coercion would be necessary, and proponents sought a test case to determine its Constitutionality. Selected was Carrie Bell, a poor white woman who previously gave birth out of wedlock - possibly due to rape. To present a facade of legal due process, she was assigned an attorney who just happened to be a eugenics enthusiast. The Supreme Court held for the State finding selected victims must categorically submit to sterilization for the collective good. It justified its conclusion by anchoring it to Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the decision upholding a State monetary fine for a refusal to be vaccinated. Connecting the two like a strange spider web, Justice Holmes reasoned, "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

To argue that Holmes was an immoral man twisting the logic of an early decision to justify a desired end would be wrong. Holmes was a widely respected jurist whose thoughtful analysis on, ironically, personal liberty and judicial restraint still hold sway in law schools. Current Supreme Court Justice Barrett, a former law school professor, is also considered a highly intelligent and thoughtful jurist. But like Holmes would do almost 100 years earlier, Barrett took as true the government agencies' speculative theories that demanded irreversible medical interventions for a 'health and welfare emergency. Perhaps we are fortunate that the Court did not find a right to strap us down to do so, finding the threat of loss of employment enough. Notably, the Court also used Massachusetts v. Jacobson to rationalize its holding but did not reference Buck v. Bell. Perhaps Nazis using it as part of their defense at the Nuremberg Trials proved problematic.

Ping-ponging back to so-called ‘conservatives’ and government overreach, we have the Patriot Act offered as an emergency necessity after 911. It was a weapon promised to point only outwards but quickly swung backward, striking US citizens like reckless friendly fire. Without the Patriot Act, would all the apparatus to follow and track citizens during Covid have been possible? Were Biden's threat to those refusing the mandates, "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin," an inevitable outgrowth of the Patriot Act because they threatened his authority?

Around the time that the Patriot Act came to be, states were enacting 'hate speech' enhancements for criminal actions. They were a sound good pitch to the public. What caring person wouldn't be for added enhancements for crimes prompted by evil beliefs? Soon hate speech and all its derivatives became the Swiss Army knife for Western Governments. When in their interest, physical crimes stemming from right thoughts can be excused. And wrong thoughts against official agendas can be punishable crimes even though no physical act has been committed. In the UK, private prayer in the wrong place for the wrong reason is punishable. So are social posts. Insulting speech directed at officials is now a criminal offense in Germany. Thus the spirit of the noble court jester of olde telling inconvenient truth to rulers is firmly dead as there is no more humor nor humility. Not to be left out, California, the home of big tech, has enacted a new law with Governor Newsom's blessing, criminalizing political satire under the emergency guise of 'protecting electoral integrity.'

Swallowing up rights with one big gulp

In 1976, the government feared Swine flu would become an epidemic and wanted a vaccine pronto. The manufacturers were reluctant to bring something to market quickly, fearing lawsuits. An agreement was reached; the government would provide cover for that particular vax - a good agreement as it injured many. The limited limitation would expand quickly like cheap lycra sweatpants, resulting in the broad 1986 vaccine liability exemption. Many blame Reagan, but the Energy and Commerce Congressional Committee sponsored it. Of the 23 congressional members, 19 were Democrats.

Lest you believe a committee is necessary to provide cover for bad products, utilizing those in high places may be faster. Throughout the 1970s, Aspartame was a failing poisonous sweetener that couldn't get approval for use as a food additive. That is until Donald Rumsfeld, the designated architect of the Iraq War under Bush, jr., was brought in to fix that problem one day after Reagan was sworn in. Sleaze and greed are human traits, not party identification.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The above words were not intended to grant rights; they enshrined their recognition and assured protection. Those who seek to curb them for any reason should be viewed as a ‘Gollum,’ the Tolkien character who was under the spell of the ring. For officials, they scramble to grasp the ring to obtain and retain power. Most, even those with good intent, will be reluctant to let power go once they have grasped it in their hands.

When assessing any government edicts or promulgations, delete any reference to party affiliation so you are not blinded by loyalty. Ask whether it seeks to protect our essence as human beings or to use us as corporeal meat suits. It is a task that takes pause and reflection for unintended consequences. Below are three scenarios to ponder.

• Certain religious sects refuse modern medicine even if their child is seriously ill, preferring instead their traditional methods. The overwhelming consensus, in both the legal and public sphere, is absolute support for State intervention. By hypothetically saving the life of one child did we inadvertantly open the door to the death and maiming of so many more children through coerced Covid medical interventions and vaccine mandates for schools?

• When assessing the construction of a shiny new medical complex in your city, reflect is this a step towards protecting human dignity with the healing of the sick and noble employment that benefits the community at large? Or is it merely a replacement for former manufacturers where humans worked on things instead of being worked upon?

• A Silicon titan laments the loss of AP classes at local high schools (an unfortunate consequence of teacher's unions valuing children's existence at school desks, but not their minds.) He sees the solution as 'brain draining' the rest of the world for the intellectual resources needed. Is this an abdication of a moral duty to be an integral part of their local community supporting families with dignified employment, small businesses and robust schools.

Are we being reduced to mere footprints of existence with our human essence no longer valued?