Slavery revisionism failure to accurately describe a terrible episode in American history

Opinion Echo published in Politico | Why Was It So Hard for Nikki Haley to Say ‘Slavery’? History Has the Answer

Presidential candidate Nikki Haley's recent (and swiftly qualified) comments about the Civil War helped to spread a myth that has warped American history for over a century.

Civil War 1881-1865

In William Faulkner’s novel, Sartoris (1929), someone asks the title character, Colonel John Sartoris, why he had fought for the Confederacy so many decades before. “Damned if I ever did know,” replied the aging veteran, now a pillar of his community in fictional Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi.

Of course, we know why Colonel Sartoris raised arms against the United States. So does anyone with a high school diploma — assuming they used up-to-date textbooks. And so did Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who in 1861 famously asserted that the “cornerstone” of the new Southern nation rested “upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

The Civil War profoundly shaped the United States as we know it today.

All of which makes it disappointing, though not surprising, that at this late date — almost 160 years after the Civil War — Nikki Haley, a leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination, shares Colonel Sartoris’ selective amnesia on the topic. When asked a softball question this week about the causes of the Civil War, Haley, a former South Carolina governor, flubbed the answer, calling it a “difficult” question and mumbling on about “basically how government was going to run — the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”

Haley qualified the comment on a radio show called “The Pulse of New Hampshire,” and followed the clean-up job with a press release, stating: “Of course the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That’s unquestioned, always the case. We know the Civil War was about slavery. But it was also more than that. It was about the freedoms of every individual. It was about the role of government.”

Civil War 1861 Currier and Ives print "The Lexington of 1861" depicting the attack on the 6th Massachusetts"

But as Haley must know — after all, as governor of South Carolina, she presided over the removal of Confederate flags from the Statehouse — many Americans do question the fundamental fact that slavery precipitated the Civil War, and her equivocation played into a long-standing agenda to rewrite American history. Haley was effectively parroting the Lost Cause mythology, a revisionist school of thought born in the war’s immediate aftermath, which whitewashed the Confederacy’s cornerstone interest in raising arms to preserve slavery. Instead, a generation of Lost Cause mythologists chalked the war up to a battle over political abstractions like states’ rights.

With red states doing battle with American history, seeking to erase the legacy of violence and inequality that counterbalance the great good also inherent in our national story, it’s worth revisiting the rise of the Lost Cause, not just to remember how damaging it was, but to confront just how damaging it still is.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, the work of interpreting the rebellion fell to a small group of unreconstructed rebels. The pioneers of Confederate revisionism included wealthy and influential veterans of the Confederacy like Jubal Early, B. T. Johnson, Fitz Lee and W. P. Johnson, who helped formulate the Lost Cause myth that would take hold by the 1880s.

The narrative strains were simple. They painted a picture of Southern chivalry — mint juleps, magnolias and moonlight — that stood in sharp contrast with the North, a region marked by avarice, grinding capitalism and poverty. The rebellion, by this rendering, had been a legal response to the North’s assault on states’ rights — not a violent insurrection to preserve chattel slavery. Even Confederate veterans like Hunter McGuire knew that to admit the war had been about slavery would “hold us degraded rather than worthy of honor … our children, instead of revering their fathers will be secretly, if not openly, ashamed.”

The myth gained steamed by the end of the century, largely because of the work of organizations like the United Confederate Veterans (UCV), the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), groups that offered a compelling story that people could wrap their minds around — including many Northerners, who were eager to put the war behind them. Because the Lost Cause emphasized heroism and honor over slavery, it venerated military figures like Robert E. Lee and swept politicians like Jefferson Davis under the rug. 

So, it was that in May 1890, over 100,000 citizens gathered in Richmond for the dedication of a statue of Lee.

The decade saw hundreds of towns across the former Confederacy raise similar monuments to their heroes and war dead. These marble and steel memorials were often planted in town squares and by county courthouses to help sanitize not only Confederate memory but the new Jim Crow order. After all, if secession had been a noble thing, so was the separation of the races.

The signs of revisionism ranged from subtle to clear. During the war, for instance, Confederate soldiers had keenly embraced the term “reb,” but the new gatekeepers of Southern memory abandoned the term. “Was your father a Rebel and a Traitor?” asked a typical leaflet. “Did he fight in the service of the Confederacy for the purpose of defeating the Union, or was he a Patriot, fighting for the liberties granted him under the Constitution, in defense of his native land, and for a cause he knew to be right?” Equally important was figuring out what to even call the war. 

It couldn’t be the “Civil War,” which sounded too revolutionary. It couldn’t be “the War of Rebellion” which smacked of treason. In the late 1880s, the UCV and UDC approved resolutions designating the conflict that killed 750,000 Americans the “War Between the States.” The term stuck for generations to come.

It wasn’t just Southerners who suffered willful memory loss in these years. Jaded by the experience of Reconstruction and in the thrall of rising scientific racism, many Northerners were equally eager to remember the war as a brothers’ quarrel over politics rather than a struggle over slavery and Black rights. The jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who began the war as a committed abolitionist, later erased the roots of the conflict and celebrated the battlefield valor of both Union and Confederate troops. “The faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty,” he said, “in a cause which he little understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has little notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use.”

Of course, historians agree that most Union troops did know why they were fighting. So did O.W. Holmes. But years after the fact, he was willing to forget. As were tens of thousands of veterans who attended Blue and Gray reunions well into the 20th century, including a massive camp gathering of 25,000 people who gathered at Crawfish Springs, Georgia, in 1889, near the Chickamauga Battlefield, for a picnic and public speeches. These mass spectacles helped Yankees and Confederates rewrite the history of the 1850s, and 1860s, ostensibly in the service of national reunion and regeneration, but also in a way that fundamentally reinforced the emerging culture and politics of Jim Crow.

The Lost Cause mythology was more than bad history. It provided the intellectual justification for Jim Crow — not just in the former Confederacy, but everywhere systemic racism denied Black citizens equal citizenship and economic rights. Its dismantling began only in the 1960s when historians inspired by the modern Civil Rights Movement revisited the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, adopting the views of earlier Black scholars like W.E.B. DuBois and John Hope Franklin, who always knew what the war was about and had shined a spotlight on the agency of Black and white actors alike.

That’s why the recent retreat to Lost Cause mythos is troubling. One would think that a Republican candidate for the presidency might be proud of the party’s roots as a firmly antislavery organization that dismantled the “Peculiar Institution” and fomented a critical constitutional revolution during Reconstruction — one that truly made the country more free.

With GOP presidential candidates waffling on the Civil War, rejecting history curricula in their states and launching political fusillades against “woke” culture, it remains for the rest of us to reaffirm the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, who in the last years of his life stated: “Death has no power to change moral qualities. What was bad before the war, and during the war, has not been made good since the war. … those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.” Whatever else I may forget, I shall never forget the difference between tho

Failed presidential candidate Nikki Haley must leave the campaign because she flopped on Civil War 101

BREAKING: Flopped MAGA presidential candidate Nikki Haley concocted a truly insane excuse for refusing to admit that the American Civil War was about slavery — and tried to somehow blame Democrats for her enormous blunder. Check out Haley's political mess on Occupy Democrats.

This is about as pathetic as it gets...😔

It all started at a town hall event on Wednesday, while speaking in New Hampshire, when Haley was asked what she thought was the specific cause of the American Civil War?

As anyone with even an elementary school education knows, the Civil War was about slavery. Specifically, the southern states wanted to hold onto their "peculiar institution" that formed the economic backbone of their cruel system. Rather than state this undeniable fact — which would have risked alienating the white nationalist voting bloc within the Republican Party — Haley cowardly stated that war was really about "how the government was going to run." 😟😲😦❗ "I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are," she said. "And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people." The backlash was widespread and immediate. Early this morning, Haley attempted some damage control.

Say this: "Slavery caused the Civil War" 100 times!

"Well, two things on this track. I mean, of course, the Civil War was about slavery. We know that, that’s the easy part of it," Haley said on the Pulse of NH — News Talk Radio Network. "What I was saying was, what does it mean to us today?" she went on. "What it means to us today is about freedom. That’s what that was all about. It was about individual freedom. It was about economic freedom. It was about individual rights. Our goal is to make sure, no, we never go back to the stain of slavery." Proving that she is just as conspiracy-addled and brain poisoned as the rest of the MAGA movement, she then tried to shift the blame for her craven remarks to her political enemies. "It was definitely a Democrat plant," claimed Haley. "That’s why I said, what does it mean to you? And if you notice, he didn’t answer anything. The same reason he didn’t tell the reporters what his name was." Is that so Nikki? Is the Democrat plant in the room with us right now?

Nikki Haley "clean up on aisle 2024!"

This woman is utterly spineless. She is willing to cater to the worst elements of her party to gain votes and she must be denied the White House. Please retweet and if you will NOT be voting for Nikki Haley — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a new pro-democracy social network that is exploding in popularity because Twitter and Facebook are trying to stop its growth — which is only making Tribel grow even faster.

Please follow us on Tribel to get all of our breaking news alerts sent straight to your phone or computer by clicking the following link: http://tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb

Moral clarity about antisemitism-: A wake up call!

Echo antisemitism opinion letters published in The New York Times:

Cartoon by Sir Bernard Partridge, 1933, noting the irony between Nazi German Chancellor Adolf Hitler's commandments of brotherhood and his actual persecution of the Jews.

Senator Chuck Schumer’s resolve to take a strong public stand against antisemitism is laudable, particularly when the scourge of hatred toward Jews is reaching a fever pitch. 

The Senate majority leader’s well spoken and poignant plea, both on the floor of the Senate and in the Times Opinion section, was notable for its moral clarity and forceful denunciation of the wanton antisemitism pervading every segment of our society. 

Furthermore, the urgency with which he conveyed how dangerous this conflagration of hate has become and how critical it is for all Americans — not just Jews — to condemn antisemitism is a clarion call that will hopefully resonate on all points of the political spectrum, on university campuses and throughout our nation.

Remaining silent in the face of blatant bigotry is indefensible, and Senator Schumer’s compelling words should serve as a wake-up call to everyone who has thus far failed to confront this growing crisis.

N. Aaron Troodler in  Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania

Freiburg, gravestone 1959. A Jewish gravestone in Freiburg, Germany, desecrated with Nazi imagery. Photograph, 1959.

To the Editor:  Like Senator Chuck Schumer, I am deeply concerned about the rise in antisemitism. I have questioned whether it is safe to continue wearing my Star of David, and ultimately decided to do so in solidarity with Jews, such as Hasidim, who cannot hide their identities, and to signal to other Jews that I am “safe.” (A stranger at a restaurant recently thanked me for wearing it, which confirmed my decision.)

But my deepest fear is not that I would be physically attacked for being a Jew.✡️

Since the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel, I witnessed the groups I have supported and people I respected celebrating the murder, kidnapping, rape and torture of Jews. They have attended pro-Palestinian protests, chanting genocidal slogans and aligning themselves with Jew haters.

As someone working in higher education, I have been horrified by the realization that political violence (“by any means necessary”) and supporting terrorism seem to be acceptable to a large number of American students and faculty members. Some of these individuals are fellow Jews, which is a crushing betrayal.

My deepest fear is that the alienation from others that I have felt since October 8, when the celebrations of terrorism began, will never go away. As I walk around my neighborhood, city and campus, I wonder which of my neighbors, colleagues or political representatives are OK with the slaughter of my people in the name of “social justice.”

I find myself skipping articles about injustices toward other groups that used to deeply concern me. I find myself wanting to disappear into an emotionally safe but ultimately self-destructive psychological ghetto, where the only people I truly trust are other Jews.

I do not think I am alone in this.

From Deborah L. Drucker in Queens NY

To the Editor:  Senator Chuck Schumer’s article hit a nerve with me. Growing up in Connecticut, I never felt the sting of antisemitism. Working for Congress or practicing law in Washington for 50 years, I never felt the sting of antisemitism.

Now, for the first time I feel threatened. I have been forced to recognize that there are Americans who would like me dead. It’s scary for all American Jews.

Our political leaders, and all leaders, including university presidents, must speak with one voice on the subject of hatred against Jews or any Americans, including African Americans and Arab Americans. We cannot accept what is going on in the country.

Marshall Matz in McLean, Virginia

New York Senator Chuck Schumer about antisemitism

Schumer Condemns Antisemitism. Echo opinion published in The New York Times:

The majority leader and highest-ranking Jewish official in the country cautioned progressives and young people against unwittingly embracing bigotry in the name of social justice.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, on Wednesday warned that some liberals and young people were “unknowingly aiding and abetting” antisemitism in the name of social justice, fueling a dangerous rise in bigotry against Jews amid Israel’s war against Hamas.

In a deeply personal speech from the Senate floor aimed largely at members of his own party, Mr. Schumer, the country’s highest-ranking Jewish elected official, issued a more than 40-minute explanation and condemnation of antisemitism in America that has flared since Israel began retaliating against Hamas for its Oct. 7 terrorist attack against defenseless Israeli civilians.

In the wake of the attack, he said, many Americans skipped over any expression of sympathy for the victims and instead attacked the past actions of the Israeli government against the Palestinians.

“Can anybody imagine a horrific terrorist attack in another country receiving such a reception?” he asked, noting that the long arc of history had taught Jews a painful lesson: “ultimately, that we are alone.”

Citizens of Israel suffered a horrendous attack orchestrated and executed by Hamas.

The solidarity that Jewish Americans initially received from our fellow citizens in the aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, has since waned, drowned out by other, more disturbing voices, even from some we considered allies, while hate crimes against Jews have skyrocketed.

Today, too many Americans are exploiting arguments against Israel and leaping toward a virulent antisemitism. The normalization and intensifying of this rise in hate is the danger many Jewish people fear most.

Since Oct. 7, Jewish-owned businesses that have nothing to do with Israel have been boycotted and vandalized. Jewish students on college campuses have been harassed and assaulted with alarming frequency. A Jewish high school teacher in Queens told me about being forced to hide in a locked office from student protesters who were demanding that she be fired because she attended a rally supporting Israel.

These are just a few examples, but they point to a troubling trend. Too often in Jewish history, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies or even older disputes over religious, economic and political issues have crossed over into something darker, into attacking Jewish people simply for being Jewish.

What happened last week at the Queens high school is an example of crossing that threshold. Walking out of school to march in support of Palestinians is completely legitimate. But forcing a Jewish teacher to hide because she had attended a rally in support of Israel is antisemitism, pure and simple.

For many Jewish people today, the rise of antisemitism is more than a crisis — it’s a five-alarm fire. That’s why I feel compelled to speak out, especially considering the growing disparity between how Jewish people understand the rise of antisemitism and how many of my non-Jewish friends regard it.

While American Jews have always been wary of the hatemongers lurking on the edges of our society, we are proud to be American, because in this country, unlike so many others, our ancestors were able to put down roots and flourish.

Take my own family story. Only in America could an exterminator’s son grow up to be the first Jewish party leader in the Senate.

But many of my family members, elsewhere, met more tragic ends.

When I was a boy, I learned what happened when the Nazis invaded my family’s town in Ukraine. The Nazis ordered my great-grandmother to gather her extended family on the porch of her home. When the Nazis told her to come with them, she refused, and they gunned her down, along with 30 members of her family, from 85 years old to 3 months old.

When I heard the story about what Hamas terrorists and its allies did in Kibbutz Be’eri, where they killed more than 120 Jews, from the elderly to babies, it struck me on a deeply personal level.

Most Jewish Americans have similar stories — stories that we learned at a young age and will stay imprinted on our hearts for as long as we live.

We see and hear things differently from others because we understand the horrors that can follow the targeting of Jewish people. We’ve learned the hard way to fear how such attacks can easily erupt into widespread antisemitism if they are not repudiated. I am sure Arab Americans have similar fears when they see the rise in Islamophobia and horrific crimes like the gut-wrenching murder of the 6-year-old Wadea Al-Fayoume.

Of course, criticizing the Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic. 

Indeed, over the years, I have vehemently disagreed with many of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies, especially his administration’s encouragement of settlements in the West Bank, gravely harming prospects for a two-state solution, which I support. 

I have also been among those who have said that Israel must act according to international law and that humanitarian assistance for Palestinians is critical.

But when criticism against Israel is allowed to cross over into something different — into a denial of a Jewish state ✡️in any form, into open calls for the very destruction of Israel, while at the same time the self-determination of other peoples is exalted — that is an example of the discriminatory double standard Jewish people have always found so hurtful. And we worry about what could come next.

Because for centuries, what is good for everybody else has been too often denied to the Jew. Jews could live here but not there; Jews could hold this job but not that.

And to declare that only the Jewish people cannot have their own state, in any form, is a glaring example of that double standard Jewish Americans so fiercely object to.

I implore every person and every community and every institution to stand with Jewish Americans 🕎and to denounce antisemitism in all of its forms. Americans are stewards of the flames of liberty, tolerance and equality that warm our melting pot and make it possible for Jewish Americans to prosper alongside Palestinian Americans as well as every other immigrant group.

America has always been exceptional. But when it matters most, are we still a nation that can defy the course of human history, where the Jewish people have been ostracized, expelled and massacred over and over again?

I believe the answer can and must be a resounding yes❗

And I will do everything in my power — as Senate majority leader, as a Jewish American, as a citizen of a free society, as a human being — to make it so.

America needs to reinforce the purpose of the Constitution's 14th and 25th amendments

Echo opinion letter published in the Idaho Press:

Department of Justice (DOJ) must update rules about sitting presidents and criminal behavior.

(Maine Writer: In my opinion, the Constitution's 14th amendment's insurrection section* and 25th amendment's** competency statement, must be reinforced by the courts.)

Constitutional amendments are laws - big laws that make big changes. Amendments are laws that are added to the Constitution of the United States.

It’s time for the U.S. Department of Justice to change its “rule” about whether it’s all right to charge a sitting president of a crime. This was never an issue until President Nixon was suspected of crimes during Watergate. At that time, someone in the Attorney General’s office apparently decided a policy was needed to cover that possibility.

In the era of Trump and Trumpzism, the situation has changed. Now we got a former guy who actually boasted that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York without any consequences. Now that court rulings have been issued that he’s liable for criminal acts while in office, it’s a small step to making him liable during his service. Mechanisms are in place to remove and replace him if necessary. While we’re at it, let’s stop a president from pardoning himself, ❗if in fact that could (possibly❗❓)be thought to be legal.😢😡

From Walt Thode in  Boise, Idaho

*... banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.

**In case of the inability of the President to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the said powers and duties shall devolve on the Vice President, until the inability be removed.

Christian principles omitted in Trumpzism

In the Idaho Press echo opinion, the Christian in "Christian Principles" is conveniently ignored and omitted. 

The hypocrisy of Evangelical "Christian Principles".

Where are Trump's "Christian Principles"? Nonexistent!

So this wrong minded opinion was published in the Idaho Press.  (RE: Kendall Kemmer, 11/21/2023): 

But, omitted important information about Trump. The guy is a criminal; incited an insurrection with sole purpose of overthrowing our democracy: becoming a dictator. He’s already been convicted of fraud in business dealings. The 91 other charges against him are fact-based. Even the worst serial killer this country had hasn’t had that many felony charges.

The 14th amendment clearly states anyone who has taken part in an insurrection cannot become President. Trump’s supporters are condoning wrong doing (anti-democracy). They don’t belong in Congress and State Legislatures. Evangelical Christians: where are those “Christian Principles” you (falsely❗) brag about❓😖😞😒

Anyone thinking a civil war is a good idea; you’re out of your minds. The reality is: armed men taking over civilians homes; raping your daughters; forcing you into oppression (voiceless); brother killing brothers. We only have to observe what’s happening in other countries to determine we don’t want that here period. Trump wants to bring vengeance on everyone who opposes him. He’s fraudulently getting money for campaigning and spending it on lawyers.

From Judy Smith in Caldwell, Idaho 

Governor Gregg Abbott wastes time signing illegal and cruel anti-immigration documents

Echo editorial published in the Chattanooga Times Free Press

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is up to it again, signing an unlawful new state law to make crossing into the country illegally a state misdemeanor. We don't expect it to last much beyond when the ink has dried.

Regular readers might recall that, for well more than a year now, we've been warning that Abbott's immigration demagoguery wouldn't stop and in fact would only intensify as long as he faced few consequences for it. New Yorkers are unfortunately and probably most familiar with his hyper-grandiose busing of thousands of innocent migrants north to the city, arguably the genesis of the broader wave of arrivals that has come to dominate political life here.

The stunt was done without any real coordination or notice because, from the start, the governor didn't care one bit about the health and safety of the real human beings on those buses, including many families with children, instead seeing them as opportune tools for his posturing.  Yet, that was far from Abbott's first border antic, and this recent move to wrest away control of immigration away from the federal government — for many reasons the only level that legally has a policymaking and regulatory role — has plenty of bravado precedent.

His insistence on inspecting commercial vehicles coming into the state from Mexico this April — in partial duplication of the inspections already done by federal customs personnel whose job it actually is to do so — snarled trade with our largest trade partner and almost triggered an international incident. Undeterred by the fiasco, he did it again a month later.

His Operation Lone Star began in 2021, as a series of state law enforcement and National Guard deployments to the border region, largely for show but occasionally to arrest migrants on the strained reasoning of trespassing on private property. The effort quickly became a disaster, leading to the suicide deaths of several troops, but Abbott just expanded it further, eventually adding buoys and razor wire that seemed designed to maim or kill migrants, and which eventually appear to have fulfilled that purpose.

At least that time the federal government took action, suing Abbott and eventually getting an appeals court to order him to take down his floating barrier, but the man in Austin just keeps churning out his drivel (slobber).

Let's be crystal clear that no state has any conceivable ground to stand on in attempting to criminalize entry without federal inspection. Similar state laws, including some infamously passed in Arizona more than a decade ago, were struck down.

Texas' attempt will turn out no differently, because for a century and a half, the ability to regulate immigration has been vested exclusively in the federal government, a fact that probably wouldn't bother Abbott much if it cut in the other direction; we imagine that if (New York) Governor Kathy Hochul set up her own checkpoints along the Canadian border with laxer entry standards than those required by federal law, Abbott would be screaming.

Of course, Abbott knows this, but he doesn't really care because he wins either way. Either the law stands and he gets to use more state power against helpless migrants, or it gets struck down and he gets to get rabble-rouse about how his tough-on-immigrants plans are getting foiled by liberal judges. Everyone else, of course, loses.

The New York Daily News

Groups sue over new Texas law that lets police arrest migrants who enter the US illegally.

Donald Trump vision for America is to destroy the Constitution

If you like the idea of electing Donald Trump so he can prosecute his enemies without any evidence of crimes, you’ll love the new impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden launched by last week’s (extremist❗) MAGA House vote. 

Echo opinion published in the Kansas City Star:

House’s impeachment stunt against President Biden is all about re-electing Trump | Opinion

It’s an evidence-free act of political retaliation that should be booked as a campaign contribution to Trump. Even “Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy turned on the Republicans’ hit job, saying they “haven’t connected the dots,” and have “not been able to provide any concrete evidence.” This Republican House has the wrong priorities. 

For example, the Republicans won’t pass a budget. They won’t address America’s inflation issues or need for better health care.

Trumpzi - Chumpzi!

But they will do Donald Trump’s dirty work, trying to smear Biden to help Trump get elected — despite their repeated investigative face-plants. They called witness Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business associate, to connect Biden to his son’s business dealings. The effort “spectacularly failed,” in the words of the Los Angeles Times. They said that Israeli-American citizen Gal Luft, the self-proclaimed whistleblower calling attention to alleged corruption by Hunter Biden, would testify about Biden family benefits obtained via China. Luft was a no-show because he was a fugitive from justice.

C

In October, House Oversight Committee Chair James omer called a $200,000 payment to President Biden from his brother James part of an “influence peddling scheme.”

But, the fact checkers showed that the check was nothing but the repayment of a two-month loan — and that Comer had done the exact same thing with his brother. 

Next Comer claimed that $4,140 in payments from Hunter to his father were nefarious. It turns out they were just reimbursements for a pickup truck that Biden bought for his son’s use. 

Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls said the quiet part out loud in early December when he admitted that he wants to give the twice-impeached Trump “a little bit of ammo to fire back.” On the day of the House vote, he celebrated it by spilling the beans all over the floor: “Trump 2024, baby!”

Trump is dangerous!

This is a dangerous game, and clearly part of Trumpists’ goal to destroy constitutional guardrails on presidential power.

Impeachment, once deployed as a partisan tool, loses potency as a constraint because citizens think, “Both sides do it.” 

As a new bipartisan report on impeachment shows, however, both sides don’t impeach presidents without real facts. The authors, including a former Republican member of the House and a Republican-appointed former federal judge, conclude that the Biden impeachment is “manifestly unjustified” and “a misuse of power” that violates the 10 core criteria for impeachment. 

By contrast, the 2019, impeachment of Trump for abusing power — by threatening to withdraw military aid to Ukraine unless President Volodymyr Zelensky investigated Joe Biden — was based on a “wealth of evidence,” per The New York Times.

In 2021, the House impeached Trump based on “devastating evidence” about his role on Jan. 6, 2021, that has since produced a federal prosecution of the former president. Last week’s (politically motivated bogus...) vote was a step in the partisan march toward a fact-free (i.e., no evidence❗) impeachment. 

Only citizens can stop the House GOP corruption of vital constitutional institutions like impeachment. A survey this month showed that 62% of voters in competitive House districts nationally said Congress should not impeach Biden without any evidence. Constituents of representatives who haven’t declared themselves opposed to this unmerited action can help preserve American democracy by calling officials’ offices or using social media to tell their representatives them that they must not vote for actual impeachment in the future.

Defeating the impeachment vote that is surely coming will take only three or so House Republicans to vote against it. 

Californians can help halt this dangerous attempt to give Trump “ammo” to blow up American democracy. 

Former U.S. Ambassador Norm Eisen was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment and trial of Donald Trump and is a co-author of An Analysis of the Biden Impeachment Inquiry. 

Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Vote Blue in 2024! Vote Democrat! Vote Joe Biden!

Republican party candidates are no longer capable of leadership

An echo opinion letter published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Dear Editor: As a 71-year-old baby boomer, for the first time in my voting experience, in good conscience, my vote can no longer be cast for any local, state or national Republican candidate.

In watching and reading information at all levels, that the Republican party is no longer interested in governing for the good of the people. Rather, it has been infected with MAGA populism.

In the past my vote has been for Democrats, Republicans and third-party candidates. Essentially, I've voted based on who the best candidate for the position may be. No more for the foreseeable future.  Sadly, the existing Republican party cannot be counted on to deliver for the 'good' of the people. I know this sounds harsh, however it is reality.

From David Fink in Chesterfield Missouri

American universities consider freedom of speech to be whatever they say it is!

Echo opinion published in the Daily Press, a Virginia Gazette opinion.   Although Maine Writer does not fully support the opinion expressed in this article, I appreciate the point of view about how academia has not condemned "hate speech" in the subjects entitled to "free speech".  Anti-Semitism is "hate speech".  

An academic housekeeping is in order!

Frankly, I do not understand how America's educational institutions can claim to support freedom of speech when they allow antisemitism to infect their campuses. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to express "hate speech".  Full stop❗

Chicago principles "... the university's responsibility is twofold, to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it..."

The responses of several university presidents during recent congressional testimony regarding campus antisemitism were disappointing, but they were also reflective of a much larger problem. That problem is not only the enforcement of prevailing social, political and economic orthodoxies, but worse, that such orthodoxies also exist in our educational institutions at all.

At too many institutions and organizations, visual diversity is on the agenda, but diversity of opinion gets lip service at best.

DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) has been a valuable aspiration in academia for quite some time and one I supported, but in many places it has morphed into an enforced catechism encompassing the trappings of a religion. Alignment with DEI has become a litmus test for hiring, promotion and tenure decisions. Everyone is expected to be on the same page, and heretics are unwelcome. Merit and equality of opportunity have been replaced by compensatory discrimination and a contrived attempt to create equal outcomes.

It is tempting to blame “wokeness” for all of this, but wokeness itself is not the problem.

Rather, the deeper problem is coercive wokeness, and the result is cultural inbreeding and a homogeneity of opinion.

FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, has been fighting for years to protect not only our First Amendment rights, but also our very culture of free expression, which is just as important. FIRE defends in court the free expression rights of people on both the political right and left. They are particularly focused on American colleges and universities, where freedom of expression, mostly as a result of smothering campus orthodoxies, is becoming increasingly threatened.

For 2024, FIRE has produced a list of 248 colleges and ranked them in the order in which free and open inquiry exists and is protected. Can readers guess who ranks last at Nos. 247 and 248? It’s the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, in that order, both of whose presidents appeared before Congress and were lambasted for equivocating about calls for the genocide of Jews, saying it all depended on the “context” or only if it is translated into action. Yale is No. 234. One is left to wonder if, for example, a group of white supremacists on campus were to call for genocide against Black people whether the same university presidents would still contend that it all depends on context or actions.

Of more local interest, Virginia Tech ranks No. 160, William & Mary ranks a respectable No. 59 and the University of Virginia ranks a stunning No. 6. The top two in the nation are Michigan Technological University at No. 1 and Auburn University at No. 2. The University of Chicago (No. 13) deserves special mention because its commitment to freedom of expression has been made very public and appears to be taken very seriously. The “Chicago Principles” have been adopted by multiple colleges and universities across the county and are described as “the university’s overarching commitment to free, robust and uninhibited debate.” Moreover, they appear to practice what they preach.

My own undergraduate alma mater is Penn State, and I was honored to teach there between 1994 and 2005. I love my school, but it now ranks No. 189. I can believe it because, having graduated from its College of Education in 1966, I have been on the mailing list from that college for a very long time, and it has changed. 

In fact, during recent years, there were multiple communications that referenced its mission about turning America’s newest teachers into social justice warriors, and many of the stories about individual students, faculty or administrators include references to their racial or other identities.

We must never forget that requiring people to say things is just as much a violation of their right to free expression as is forbidding them to say things. Of course, our right to freedom of expression is not absolute in nature, meaning utterly without restriction. 

There will continue to be penalties for such things as libel, slander, fraud, incitement to riot, etc. 

In the end, the presence of prevailing orthodoxies, where students, faculty, administrators and guest speakers are fearful of retribution for wandering off of the politically correct page, is antithetical to the freedom of inquiry that higher education is supposed to be about.

If I were to be offered a position as a DEI officer at a college or a business, I would accept it only on the condition that my mission would be to promote equality of opportunity, advance the Chicago Principles and endeavor to work myself out of a job.

Joseph Filko has taught economics and American government and lives in Williamsburg. He can be reached at jfilko1944@gmail.com.

Mass shooting in Lewiston Maine on October 25 in 2023: Shooter was well known to law enforcement

Maine law enforcement knew shooter posed a threat but were concerned about confronting him, video shows.  Echo report published in The Boston Globe by Nick Stoico.

Law enforcement officers in Maine were aware that Robert Card had access to guns and posed a potential threat but were concerned that approaching him at home would trigger a violent reaction, according to newly released recordings taken just weeks before Card carried out a mass shooting in Lewiston.

Memorial in the parking lot of Sparetime Recreation(rear), one of two locations in Lewiston, Maine's mass shooting. (John Tlumacki/Globe staff)

In one video, first obtained by the Portland Press Herald, a discussion between Sagahadoc County Sheriff’s Sergeant Aaron Skolfield and Army Reserve Captain Jeremy Reamer illustrates the fear law enforcement felt about confronting Card, as Skolfield suggested that attempting to seize Card’s guns under Maine’s “yellow flag” law could lead to an escalation.

“We don’t wanna throw a stick of dynamite into a pool of gas either and make things worse,” Skolfield said in the call.

L'Heureux photo

The law enforcement checks were initially set off by an incident in July at an Army Reserve training camp in New York, in which Card got into a fight with three other reservists and made veiled threats of violence to others. Card was sent to a psychiatric facility for two weeks, but in September the Army Reserve contacted the sheriff’s department in Maine when one of his fellow reservists worried he was “going to snap and commit a mass shooting.” The fellow reservist said Card had told him he had guns and was going to “shoot up the drill center in Saco and other places.”

A little more than one month later, Card, 40, opened fire on the night of October 25, at a Lewiston bar and a bowling alley, killing 18 people and injuring 13 others. Card was later found dead in nearby Lisbon of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The September 16, call happened shortly after Skolfield had attempted to speak with Card at his Bowdoin home, but Card did not answer the door.


A second video released to the Press Herald showed Skolfield visiting Card’s father’s home later that morning.

The phone call between Skolfield and Reamer, Card’s Army Reserve supervisor, and the visit with Robert Card Sr. were previously documented in an outside report released last week that examined law enforcement’s response to concerns raised by Card’s family and others about his erratic behavior and cache of weapons. The 97-page report from Michael A. Cunniff, a Portland attorney chosen to conduct the review, found the deputies acted appropriately “under the totality of the circumstances.”

According to the report, Skolfield suspected Card was inside his home even though no one answered. He said Card’s vehicle was parked in the driveway, he saw the curtains move in a window that faced the road, and he thought he heard someone moving around inside.

Skolfield then spoke with Reamer to follow up on the wellbeing check. Reamer asked if the sheriff’s department could document the visit to confirm that Card was “alive and breathing.” 

Reamer also voiced concern about the safety of law enforcement officers if they made further attempts to ensure Card did not pose a threat.

“I’m a cop myself. ... Obviously, I don’t want you guys to get hurt or do anything that would push you guys in a compromising position and have to make a decision,” Reamer said, according to the video and a transcript.

“That’s our goal,” Skolfield responded. “I was hoping he was gonna come out. ... I’m sure he saw the cruiser out in the yard.”

Reamer said the Card family had taken responsibility for removing the guns, and Skolfield said he would confirm that with Card’s brother, Ryan. Skolfield referred to the Cards as a “big family in this area,” and said he didn’t want the police visits to their homes to be publicized and would keep information off the police radio.

Skolfield then went to the home of Card’s father, Robert Card Sr., also in Bowdoin. Robert Card Sr. answered the door and their conversation was recorded on the cruiser’s dashcam.

“I understand that Ryan has his weapons, and I just want to make sure that’s the case,” Skolfield says. “Are you familiar with that at all?”

Skolfield told Robert Card Sr. that it was his understanding that Robert Card’s weapons were now in the possession of his brother, Ryan, but the father said he hadn’t spoken with Ryan in a few days. Skolfield said he’d try again later.

“I just wanted to make sure Robert doesn’t do anything foolish at all,” Skolfield said in the video.

Skolfield then went to Ryan Card’s home, but he wasn’t there, according to the outside report from last week. He spoke with Ryan Card on the phone the next day, according to the outside report, and Ryan Card told Skolfield he would “work with” his brother to ensure that he does not have any firearms except for those in the family gun safe at the Card farm.

The release of the videos comes as the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s department continues to face questions about whether it should have done more to remove Card’s weapons, given the concerns of his family and others who reported that his mental health was deteriorating.

Sagadahoc County Sheriff Joel Merry did not immediately respond to a message from the Globe seeking comment Friday night.

In November, Maine Governor Janet Mills convened a task force to conduct a separate independent review of the circumstances that led to the mass shooting and whether law enforcement responded properly to the warnings that Card posed a substantial threat of violence. That panel’s review is ongoing.

Documents obtained by the Globe in late October showed that Card’s wife and teenage son reported to a sheriff’s deputy in May that he was paranoid and hearing voices and had recently picked up 10 to 15 guns that were stored at his brother’s home.

The outside report released last week said Sagadahoc County Sheriff Deputy Chad Carleton spoke with Card’s relatives and the Army Reserve and was told they would seek professional mental health treatment for Card. The report said Cuniff found that “there were insufficient grounds to take Mr. Card into protective custody” and deferring to others to monitor his wellbeing “was objectively reasonable.”

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

When abortion is on the ballot the voters are choosing to be pro-choice

A little over a year ago, after voters in Kansas overwhelmingly chose to protect access to abortion, we issued North Carolina Republicans a challenge: Put abortion on the ballot. On Tuesday, in Ohio, it happened again. 

North Carolina Republicans won’t let the voters vote on abortion. because hey know they’d lose. | Opinion

Echo editorial board opinion published in the Charlotte Observer:

Abortion was on the ballot, and the right to access abortion won. Voters approved by double digits an amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, making Ohio the seventh state to pass such a ballot measure since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade last year. So we’re issuing that challenge again. Come on, North Carolina Republicans❗

So, put abortion on the ballot. What are you afraid of❓

Unlike Ohio, North Carolina does not allow citizen-led ballot initiatives, but there’s still a way to put constitutional amendments up for a vote. The General Assembly can propose that a constitutional amendment be on the statewide ballot, but the proposal must pass with three-fifths approval in the House and Senate. We contacted the offices of House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger to ask if they’d be open to such a proposal, but they did not respond to our request for comment. When legislators passed North Carolina’s 12-week abortion ban earlier this year, they insisted it was “mainstream” and “in line with what the majority of North Carolinians believe.” If that’s true, they shouldn’t have a problem with putting it to a test.

Some Republicans argue that allowing voters to weigh in directly on matters of public policy defeats the purpose of having elected representatives. After all, there’s a reason why the United States isn’t a direct democracy. But there’s a difference between using referendums to make nuanced policy decisions and allowing people to weigh in on whether they should have a basic right. Besides, Republicans seemed to be OK with it when they allowed voters to weigh in on same-sex marriage in 2012, and on voter ID in 2018. Why not now? Of course, there’s a reason why North Carolina Republicans won’t put abortion on the ballot. They don’t want to fight a battle they’re likely to lose. They don’t want to know what the majority of North Carolinians actually believe, because it might not

Of course, there’s a reason why North Carolina Republicans won’t put abortion on the ballot. They don’t want to fight a battle they’re likely to lose. They don’t want to know what the majority of North Carolinians actually believe, because it might not line up with what they want. If voters in red states like Ohio and Kansas can preserve access to abortion, then North Carolina can, too. Seeing the success of abortion measures, Republicans across the country have been trying to make it harder for voters to amend state constitutions with ballot initiatives. In fact, Ohio Republicans tried to raise the threshold for passing future constitutional amendments, but voters resoundingly rejected that proposal back in August. They’ve also used misleading language to try to trick voters into shooting down abortion measures. It hasn’t worked.

Even when abortion isn’t directly on the ballot, though, it’s still a losing issue for Republicans. In Virginia, Republicans centered their efforts to take control of the state legislature around a proposal to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. They intentionally referred to it as a “limit” instead of a “ban,” hoping the tempered language would win over moderate voters. It didn’t. Democrats retained control of one chamber of the legislature and flipped the other. And in Kentucky, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear won re-election with abortion rights a major focus of his campaign. There are signs that North Carolina Republicans are wary of public opinion on abortion. They object to the characterization of the state’s 12-week abortion ban as a “ban.” Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, the likely GOP nominee for governor, has softened his rhetoric on abortion, while members of his party have attempted to downplay his past public statements on the issue. 

Republicans will benefit, too, from new gerrymandered maps designed to preserve a GOP supermajority in both chambers of the legislature — at least somewhat insulating them from any potential backlash to the abortion ban they passed earlier this year. 

But instead of searching for ways to obfuscate and ignore the will of the voters, Republicans should let them have a voice. 

Just like voters in Ohio, and Kansas, and Michigan, North Carolinians deserve the chance to determine the path our state will follow on an issue as critical as abortion. They should get a say in a matter that so deeply affects their bodies and their lives.