So, if you’ve been reading, you’ll have noticed this post about my political views, where I touched on my stances on political issues as a whole.
Politically, however, I’m much more moderate. Though still in the bottom left quadrant, I’d be much more near the middle, simply due to the fact that, in addition to the fact that I’m an idealist, I’m also a realist.
If I could craft the world, I’d make it fit my ideological views, because, ultimately, I have too much faith in the positive nature of humanity.
However, since I can’t, and since humanity isn’t as great as I’d like to believe, when it comes to voting, politics, what I’ll stand for in an intellectual perspective, I take a slower, more methodical, approach.
While I do agree that a more aggressive approach is best to get things done, I also understand that progress, of any kind, is made in steps. Going 0 to 60 in three seconds is great, but if you do that, you can’t see the car coming up right behind you fast enough to react properly.
If you try to make a big change before taking the proper steps to implement those changes, you could have harmful consequences that impact more than you thought.
Whereas if you go in steps, you can deal with those consequences as they arise, making the proper changes needed to combat them while still working towards your overarching goal.
One of the problems, if it’s not the foremost problem, in the United State’s current political climate is that people lack either the intellect, the capacity, the will, or some combination of the three, to discern hopeful ideology and what the harsh reality of the world and just how much power we have over it actually is.
As I’ve stated before, people dislike hearing bad news. They go to such high lengths to avoid it that things that sound nice, no matter how false, are more believed, simply because they don’t want to face the fact that reality kind of sucks.
Those who are more intellectually inclined, realists, or even just cynics, know the world isn’t as good as we’d like to believe. Those who deal with depression, abuse, discrimination, and many more issues, have been through a great deal and have had to work through it, all while dealing with everything else in the world.
They, and I include myself when I say ‘they’, understand that the world isn’t fair; that things don’t always go your way; that everything isn’t always good. Life has made them realists.
Some people, like myself, manage to still be hopeful, to believe in the good.
It’s difficult being an optimist and a pessimist; a realist and an idealist. To be quite honest, it’s infuriatingly irritating and stressful.
On one side of the argument, I know exactly how things are in the world and can plan accordingly to deal with the consequences of it.
On the other side, I hold a fancifully positive outlook on life and the world, to the point that, though I know that things may not go the way I want them to, I’m still achingly disappointed when they turn out that way.
This shows up in my posts often. I, somehow, manage to keep hope that maybe, just maybe, someday in the future people will be as good as they can be. That the Rebellion, the Resistance, whatever you want to call it, will succeed.
To get back to the point, it’s possible to be both an idealist and a realist. It’s not easy, but then, nothing worth anything ever really is.
If you can recognize that the way you view the world isn’t how everyone else does, you can realize that ideological views can’t always align with your political views.
As I’ve stated before, a vote isn’t just an opinion, it is an action. When you have idealistic views, that’s just an opinion, but when you transfer those same views over to your politics, meaning who you vote for, what you stand for, etc. so on and so forth, that’s an action, because it’s directly affecting other people’s lives.
Hillary Clinton caught a lot of flak when she mentioned ‘a public and a private position’.
“You just have to sort of figure out how to … balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”
While I can understand the sentiment behind the controversy, and even the issue behind the controversy, I don’t understand where why people objected so hard to the ‘public vs private’ part specifically.
Any intellectual knows that reality doesn’t always align with what you want it to be and that you have to compromise in order to get closer to your goals. That’s exactly what she was saying.
While I agree on principle that, no, we shouldn’t have to compromise to get important things done, I understand that it’s necessary in the world we live in.
Again, it’s about theory vs. practice.
We need to take a step back, take a breath, and look at things as objectively as we can, separating ourselves from the issue for a moment.
Rather than just applying it wholly without thinking of the consequences, we need to implement our theory in a practical way.
I’d like to expand on a Twitter thread I made last week about…well, if you read it, it went all over the place, but, at its heart it was about unity within the Democratic Party, progressives, liberals, etc. so on and so forth. (Yes, they are all different; there’s some overlap, true, but they’re still different.)
I’m just going to quickly summarize the thread and expand on those points:
- Each and every issue that we’ve been fighting or that comes up is important and we should focus on every single one of them.
Russia, which those on the
actual left consistently throw under the bus as unimportant, is important. We have multiple officials of the Trump Administration, including Trump himself, who have lied about speaking with Russian officials during the 2016 Presidential Campaign. To dismiss that out of hand simply because it’s not focusing on what you deem as unimportant is exactly what those on the right do about everything.
Russia is important.
DAPL, the Dakota Access Pipeline, where the fight against water pollution has reached a head, at least for now, is important. The corporate-owned mainstream media* has given barely any focus to this because of, like almost all issues to do with political dissonance, money.
- *(Which is not fake; pointing out that they’re mainstream and owned by big corporations is not the same as disregarding their legitimacy.)
DAPL is important.
Trump, incompetent, immoral, man-child idiot that he is, unfortunately, is important. He is the face of our nation, the one who is supposed to be leader. That he’s failing is important, even as each and every controversy and scandal serves as a distraction for the Republicans to push harmful legislature through.
Trump is important.
Immigration, Sessions, DeVos, Bannon, Perry, getting money out of politics, etc… They are all important.
- We need to stop fighting with each other. We need to let go of this Bernie vs. Hillary fight, and we need to acknowledge that it’s still happening.
That part of the fight is over. No more of these “Bernie would have won” or “Bernie’s not even a Democrat; Hillary was the candidate” arguments or talking points. That’s derailing the actual fight. We need to stop attacking Hillary, stop attacking Bernie, stop defending both of them, etc. so on and so forth.
American politics, indeed, America itself, is like a baseball game: you have the players, the coaches, the equipment, the umpires and the commentators, and the audience.
- The players are the respective parties and, as their name says, political players; the politicians.
- The coaches are the ones that guide the players, the politicians; they’re the minds behind the policies…currently, the coaches are the donors.
- The equipment is the policies and game itself, the process; the bat is the opposite party’s obstruction; the ball is the policy/decision and ideals themselves; it’s how the game is played, how things are manipulated.
- The umpires and commentators:
- The umpires are the ones who keep the players, and the game, in check; in the case of this analogy, it’s the news media, the ones who watch every moment of the game and players to keep them from doing something that’s against the rules.
- The commentators are also the news media, and also political pundits; their jobs are different from the umpires in that they don’t keep the game/players in check, but keep the audience informed of what’s going on.
- The audience:
- The audience is us; the American people; those that will be affected by the game, the players actions, etc. We expect everyone else, everything else, to do the heavy lifting for us so we can just go on and enjoy the show.
We need to focus on the Republicans. They are the ball. We need to stop focusing on the obstacles on our own team (Hillary vs. Bernie, media, etc.) and focus on them. You can’t win the game if you don’t hit the ball.
When the Democrats say “we need to focus on unity”, what they’re saying is that we need to keep our eye on the ball, which is everything.
I’m not saying that the corporate Democrats aren’t a problem (the people who dismissed Bernie and the progressives to try to get more moderate Republican voters); I’m not saying that Bernie didn’t divide the party (he brought out the more progressive side, the people who stayed on the left while the Democratic Party hightailed it to the right, which did divide the party).
No. What I’m saying is that we need to focus on both of those issues, but not to the degree that we are right now. We need to push it to the back burner for the moment. We need to focus on the Republicans. They are the ones who are hurting people and destroying this country.
At the very least, we need to split our focus to all of those things. Equally.
To quote myself: Yes, it’s a division of resources. Yes, it’s harder. But that’s not important now. We have the numbers and the willpower. What we need is the focus.
We need to keep our eye on the ball. We need to unite.
Often, the term ‘politically correct’ is used as a pejorative, an insult, towards people asking to be treated as humans by those on the right.
It’s a phrase meant to delegitimize treating others the way you want to be treated, and wanting others to do so as well. It’s an attempt to delegitimize people for having basic human compassion and empathy.
The entire principle of ‘political correctness’ is based upon the idea that all people are equal and should be treated as such; put simply: being a decent human being.
However, those on the right, who claim to be the morally superior side, object to this; they object to being kind to one another. They cite “freedom of speech” as the reason to be against being human.
(More on morals and their place in politics in a later post.)
To them, to be human, to be decent and good, is a weakness. It’s irrelevant because, to them, they’re above; they have power, so they’re above. Because, to them, some people are better than others.
To them, the idea of freedom sounds good, just as long as it’s not actually put into practice. Or just as long as it applies to them and not the others.
These beliefs go against the Declaration of Independence: the document, the idea, the heart, and the soul of America.
Those who oppose the idea of ‘political correctness’ are opposed to the basic principle that all men are created equal, a truth that is found to be self-evident in the United States, the foundation of this country.
So while the term ‘politically correct’ is founded in the basis of our country, our politics, and our policies; the way the term is used is not.
The way the term is used is as an argument against American principles. It is following the idea of America and not the actuality and reality of America.
The fight against ‘political correctness’ is a fight against humanity, and, indeed, a fight against America.
President of the United States… Also known as: Chief of State; Chief Executive; Chief Diplomat; Chief Legislator; Chief Administrator; Commander-In-Chief… Those are the roles of the President as outlined in the Constitution. Two other roles the President must fill are: Chief of Party and Voice of the People.
So, right off, that’s a lot. I’m going to break it down with just a sentence or two each.
- Chief of State: The President is the head of the government; rules over the government.
- Pretty obvious, but important to note.
- Chief Executive: Has executive powers that are limited by the other two branches of government, Judicial and Legislative.
- Again, obvious.
- Can sometimes be used interchangeably with Chief Administrator.
- Chief Diplomat: Recognize foreign governments and helps keep the US legitimate in the eyes of the world.
- Representative of the US Government.
- Basically, a sort of a host for a party? That’s a pretty good way of putting it, albeit unusual; but it works.
- Chief Legislator: Shaper (not controller) of law.
- Basically, upholds the law and may ask or insist Congress (the makers of law) enact laws.
- Chief Administrator: Manager of the executive branch of government.
- Keeps information flowing with the different departments of government.
- Can sometimes be used interchangeably with Chief Executive.
- Commander-In-Chief: Head of the military, full stop.
- Every action taken, every death suffered, is the President’s responsibility.
So, those are the ones outlined in the Constitution, the ‘official’ roles.
Here are the ‘unofficial‘ roles:
- Chief of Party: Leader of the country as a whole.
- Not just the government, a specific branch, or the military, the entire country.
- Voice of the People: Representative of the United States of America.
- This may seem redundant, and, in a way, it is, but it’s important to note.
- As the ‘Voice of the People’, the President is who tells the world what we stand for.
- We the People.
- As in all of us.
- We the People.
- As the ‘Voice of the People’, the President is who tells the world what we stand for.
- This may seem redundant, and, in a way, it is, but it’s important to note.
Now that that’s finished, let’s get to the focus of the post: Commander-In-Chief.
The President of the United States has refused to take responsibility for the death of US Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens. A death that occurred during a failed raid in Yemen that the President himself gave the orders for.
Not only is he refusing to take responsibility for this death, that he ordered, but he’s blaming his generals. Generals that he commands.
Let that sink in for a moment; I’ll wait.
Got it? Good.
The President of the United States is not only refusing to take responsibility for a Navy SEAL whose life he controls, but is deflecting that responsibility onto people under him.
This is a man who has personally draft-dodged, avoided serving, the military that he now commands.
Now, before I go any further, I’m going to state, for the record, that I abhor the military. I abhor its practices, purpose, and use. But, and this is important, I recognize that the military is a necessary part of our country, and indeed, the world we live in. I recognize that they are the ones that keep us safe, day in and day out; that they literally put their life on the line for us. I understand that.
I respect that with the same respect those individuals in the military have for our freedoms and country, the reasons they fight for us. Those same individuals are not the ones I have a problem with. The system is what I have a problem with. The need for the system is what I have a problem with.
Having said that, I understand and, yes, empathize with the President’s actions in his past.
However, I believe that anyone that wants to be President should have either firsthand military experience or firsthand experience with the responsibilities that they will hold in regards to the lives of others.
Let me explain.
If you’re going to have power over life, you should know the consequences and be willing to take responsibility for those consequences.
That is your responsibility as someone with control over other people’s lives.
You need to know what you’re doing and you must take responsibility if and when things may go wrong. (This goes for all aspects of life, for everyone. See here.)
Here’s where my problem lies: we have a president who is refusing to accept and deflecting the consequences of his actions.
That is not what a leader is. That is not what the Commander-In-Chief does.
To put simply, that is not what a President is.
So I ask: who’s really in command here if we don’t have someone willing to accept the consequences of their actions, if we don’t have a president?
Right off, that’s going to anger a lot of people.
Too bad. Them’s the breaks and they’re facts, not ‘alternative facts‘ (which are lies, BTW).
“The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.”
Remember that quote from this post about the First Amendment being attacked? Well, it’s time to expand on that like I said I would.
So, our country has what you call (and is stated above, in our constitution) “separation of church and state“. As stated above, that means that the government cannot pass legislation to establish an official religion, meaning that, while you can argue that the US has roots that come from Christian beliefs, it is not a Christian nation.
And it never will be. At least, not without ceasing to be the USA.
There’s also another part of that statement, saying that the government won’t pass legislation showing preference over one religion over another.
Now, clearly, if you’ve been paying attention at all in the last, oh, forever, that’s not been held true. Meaning that, pretty much since its inception, the United States has been violating its own constitution.
These violations have slowly been rolled back, but over the last decade or three, there’s been a bit of a snag… A snag called the religious right.
Also known as the evangelical right, the religious right (herein referred to as RR) is primarily made up of Christians who seek to impose their will and religious beliefs onto others. I could put it more delicately, but that’s what it is.
When you look at civil rights specifically, it becomes more and more clear that this is what’s happening.
With women’s rights, the right to vote, choose her healthcare, make choices about her body, etc. so on and so forth, opponents to these basic freedoms are almost always combatted with religious beliefs. (I’m going to stick with the ones I know best, so the right to vote is, unfortunately, not going to be discussed in-depth.)
- Control of healthcare, specifically, but not limited to, birth control (including permanent birth control in the form of a hysterectomy).
- Back in 2014, Hobby Lobby, the craft store, brought a case to court in an, unfortunately successful, attempt to stop being required to pay for women’s healthcare if they chose to use contraceptives.
- They argued under the principle that, because the owners of the company are religious, the law that mandated them to provide health insurance (the Affordable Care Act) was prohibiting religious freedoms, which would be in violation of the First Amendment. However, because HL is a corporation, which is very clearly not a human being, this is somewhat baffling.
- Now, yes, corporations are given certain rights and protections. However, religion should not be one of them. Religion is an individual belief system; not a set of bylaws. Moreover, you cannot refuse to hire someone on the basis of religion.
- Choices for one’s own body. (This one also has to do with birth control, albeit in the form of abortion – which is only technically birth control.)
- Combatants of abortion, purveyors of the anti-choice* movement, often tout religious morality as a reason to prohibit a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.
*They are anti-choice, not ‘pro-life’. More on this in a future post.
These are two of the biggest issues with women’s rights. Also a huge issue is the pay gap between women and men, but if I get into that, I’m going to be here for hours.
(Note: I’d planned to speak about LGBTQ+ rights, but decided not to simply because of time and because I could, and plan to, make an entire post about this very large swath of issues.
I also plan on making a post expanding on my post about feminism with a more in-depth look at women’s rights. I just had a thought with that post and accomplished it. Also coming up is a post about POC (specifically Black) rights; that’s a very large, important issue that deserves its own post.)
So, back to the issue of how the RR wants to impose their will and beliefs on you.
Hobby Lobby brought up a court case citing religious freedom in order to skirt around a mandate that required them to treat women like human beings and provide them health insurance that covered them adequately.
Far and wide, opponents of allowing women to decide what they want to do with their bodies, cite religious morality in attempts, sometimes successful, sometimes not, to bar women from having full autonomy over their bodies.
Getting back to the main issue at hand, when you look at these examples, just two of many, it becomes increasingly clear that the US has been, sometimes successfully, disregarding the Constitution by using religious beliefs to make laws, in clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Look at the recent Muslim ban: the Trump Administration attempted to bar people coming from seven Muslim majority countries and putting Christians in those countries ahead in the priority list.
Again, clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Which is why it was shut down by judges.
I don’t really have a point to this post, to be perfectly honest with you. I could go on and on and on, citing parts of our history, times when laws were made that violated the Constitution and when they were (or weren’t) found unconstitutional, but I’d be here for days. Literally.
I’m also trying to keep these posts on the short-ish side and I’m already approaching 1000 words. (Sorry. Gotta keep it real.)
I guess, if I had to make a point for this post, I’d say this: we still have a lot further to go. And, unfortunately, with the current Administration, it’s much more likely that we go backwards rather than forwards.
The clock never stops ticking. The fight never ends. But, still, we persist.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”
– President Dwight Eisenhower, Address “The Chance for Peace” Delivered Before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 4/16/53
I, once again, begin my post with a quote, this time from Republican* President Dwight Eisenhower.
(*Keep in mind, over the course of history, the Republican and Democratic parties have switched platforms numerous times.
For instance, while Abraham Lincoln was president, he was technically a Republican, but, in the time since then, the parties have switched platforms three times. Meaning, the Republicans of Abraham Lincoln’s time were the Democrats of today.
I’ll be making an entire post on this sometime in the future, as it’s one of my favorite facts to bring up that most people don’t know, so I’ll link it here with more information and specifics after that point.
For right now, keep in mind that I’m not 100% sure that the Republicans of Eisenhower’s time were still the Republicans of today, or if Eisenhower was just a bit of an outlier**, though I do know that the last time they change platforms, into what they were today, was as recently as the last fifty years, in the 70s if I’m remembering correctly. I just looked all of this up to confirm and make sure of the number of times the platforms switched a couple weeks ago, but I can’t definitively, at this moment, confirm, simply because of the reasons stated above.
You’ll just have to take it on my word, unless you’d like to go back and look it up, until I make that post entirely about this issue.) (**I just skimmed through his Wikipedia page and an official website dedicated entirely to him for this specific quote; he seems to be more on the left, going from the quotes, if that helps anything. Again, I’ll be making an entire post about this and linking it here.)
Back to the issue at hand, every penny we spend on war, on our ‘defense’ fund, is money that isn’t being spent on other things, such as education, healthcare, comprehensive police training, homelessness, veterans, etc. so on and so forth.
We spend 36% of the entire world’s military spending, $604.5 billion. Compare that to the country closest to us in military spending, China, who spends $145B. That’s less than 1/3 of our spending. Let’s go down the list one more, to Russia, who spends $58.9B. Yes, you read that right. Russia, often touted as the United State’s “greatest enemy”, spends less than ten times in military than the United States.
Let me phrase it another way: The United States spends more on military than the 12 next highest military-spending nations combined.
Read that again.
We spend more on military than the next 12 nations that also spend a significant amount on military combined.
And the Trump Administration wants to add $54B on top of that. That would bring the prospective total up to $658,500,000,000.
Look at all of those digits. I count twelve.
Think about that. That’s astonishing.
Think about what you would do with that money. Most people I know would take care of their families, make sure they all had homes, cars, and enough money to live a good life. Then they would give the rest to people who need it.
Now think about what we’re doing with that money, as a country. We’re spending it on weapons, tanks, fighter jets, warships, bombs, and murder. Literal, actual murder. Of human beings in other countries and our own. Sure, some of them are bad people, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not being murdered.
Now think of all of the other things that we need: better education, healthcare, veterans, the list goes on.
Think of all the things that you need in your city, in your county, in your state. Think of how broken (and it’s only going to get worse) our education system is. Think of how many homeless veterans there are; how many homeless people there are; think of how many empty houses there are, just waiting to be bought.
If you think of all of those things and you still believe that we need to spend all of that money, all of those billions, those twelve digits, on a military that we use to kill and destroy and incite terror (AKA: terrorism)…
I don’t know what to say to you.
I just don’t know what to say.
Yesterday, 2/24/17, the government itself, specifically the Trump Administration, attacked the First Amendment, which includes our right to freedom of expression, most commonly referred to as freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition.
So, immediately, that’s a lot of information. Let me break it down for you simply. (Source for this section, here.)
Under the First Amendment, you are given the right to freedom of:
- Expression, AKA Freedom of Speech: “The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.”
- Possible prohibitions: “speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence”
- Press: The allowance of “an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination”. (Note: this does fall under freedom of expression.)
- Religion: This is a two-parter: establishment and free exercise.
- Establishment: “The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.” (This is important; I’ll be coming back to this in a later post.)”
- Free Exercise: “The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion.”
- Assembly: “The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief.”
- Protesting, put simply. (There is a clear difference between protesting and rioting.)
- Also could possibly be interpreted from this is your right to go to church. (While also protected by the Free Exercise clause, this reinforces those protections.)
- Petition: “The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action.”
- This reinforces the right of assembly.
Okay, so you got all that? It’s very simple. I’ll sum it up for you further:
The First Amendment is where the bulk of your freedoms come from. It is the basic ideology of the United States of America.
There is a reason why it is the First Amendment and not the Second.
The First Amendment gives you your freedoms in America.
The Second Amendment gives you the capabilities to protect those freedoms.
Understand? It’s all really simple. Just go read the last five lines before this one, as many times as you need. It’s very important to understand what your rights are and where they come from. Take your time.
Understand this clearly: without the First Amendment, you do not have any true rights. You have the idea and illusion of rights.
Read those last two sentences again. Read them until you know every word by heart. Read them until you fully understand them. Get them tattooed on your arm if you have to.
Now, do you remember what I opened this with?
Yesterday, 2/24/17, the government itself, specifically the Trump Administration, attacked the First Amendment, (…)
Do you feel that chill in your spine? That sense of impending doom? That terrifying moment that shifts your entire world?
Good. That’s what you should feel.
“They say that we can’t criticize their dishonest coverage because of the First Amendment, you know, they always bring up the First Amendment.”
Those are the words of the Commander-In-Chief himself.
“But he’s not the government or his administration.”
To quote CIC himself and put it simply: Wrong.
The President is the government; he is his administration. He is not just one person any longer; he ceased to be a single person when he took that oath of office on January 20th, 2017. At the moment he said those words, he became an entity, an idea. He became the face of the government itself.
His very words are policy. His actions are government actions. They are actions on behalf of the United States, and it’s citizens.
The world does not consist of only the USA. The entire world is watching us. They are watching the words and actions of our government, and they are scared.
The entire world thinks us a laughingstock, but that does not mean that they are not taking us seriously.
The world knows what we can do, what we have done, and they see what we just did, what we are doing, and they are terrified.
The United States has long since been held in people’s minds as the place to go when you’re in trouble, when you want a better life; this is, in part, due to how we’ve held ourselves in high regard and treated our fellow humans in times of need.
They see us imploding; they see our rights slowly being eroded away.
They see our supposed leader disregarding our Constitution, our laws, our ideology, and they are wondering what will happen in their country.
If we, the supposed “greatest nation on Earth”, has this happening to it, what does that mean for their nations? If we go the way of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or any of the other infamous examples of toppled governments, what’s to stop them from following in our lead, as so many countries do on a myriad of issues?
Yes. We should be scared with our rights, our freedoms, being stripped away, but not just for ourselves.
We are standing on a precipice of history, a knife’s edge. How we uphold ourselves, and, indeed, our government, will shape the entire future of the world.
Are you ready?