Freedom is not the right to harm, but the right to be free from harm.

Those immersed in freedom know its meaning less than those deprived its privileges.

When offering freedom, 

often you must follow with charity. 

Freedom is not the protection of privilege, but the privilege of protection.

Those who hunger for freedom know more what it means than those who have been coddled by it. 

Freedom does not demand conformity.

We tell them to speak English and to assimilate, but is this really the path of freedom?

Only in giving in to the night will you find strength to face the day.

The Righteousness of a Nation Lends to Its Success, Part I

  I do not say righteousness is the only factor. I do not say it is always the determining factor. But, righteousness does contribute, and sometimes mightily.
   Make America great again? Have we fallen? Could it be for lack of righteousness?
   Would it be so wrong to look at whether we are keeping the commandments, and see if there is any connection?
    What are the two great commandments? To love the Lord God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. And, the second commandment is like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.
    Loving the Lord God -- or lacking to do so -- might be reflected in our attitudes on public prayer, and whether we are  a church-attending nation. Some -- in this day we have arrived at -- are angry when creationism is taught in our schools. That is hardly loving the Lord with all thy soul.
   Now, love thy neighbor: How are we doing on this? Look at the divides. Of them, there might be no bigger than the division of conservatives and liberals. Notice how often one cannot speak of the other without saying something derogatory -- calling them a foul name or questioning their intelligence by calling them idiots.
    We would call this love? We would suggest that, somehow, we are still keeping the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself?
   We spew hatred, and insist we are Christian people of love. We insist we are Christian to the core, yet we take a brother and a sister, and a neighbor -- and hate them.
   I would add more: I would turn your minds to the treatment of immigrants -- who often constitute some of the poorer people of the earth. Yet, we revile them. Is this, Love thy neighbor?
   How righteous is our nation? If we judge it by whether it is keeping the two great commandments, how is it doing? Look at the current success of our nation and weigh it against how we have became a nation of so much hatred -- and wonder that we are as successful as we are.

What Makes America Great Again May be a Matter of Open Minds

  We speak of making America great again, and I would be certain we think that will not happen unless we strengthen our education system.
   I will agree. But, I will also suggest that the single most important component of a good education system is partially absent from ours.
   America will only be as great as its ability to think.
   If we are to better our education system, we should emphasize teaching the student to think. For my part -- reflecting on my education -- I wonder if I did not benefit more from playing chess during lunch than I did from any of the classes.
   Classes in critical thinking? I believe that a good idea. Classes on current events? Yes, and encourage the students to think out the issues and to consider on what is best. Train them not to just search out arguments that favor either conservatives or liberals, but to seek the truth, whichever side it falls on. Classes with scientific experiments? Yes, and teach them to come up with their own experiments as they search for how things work not by being told, but by finding out on their own.
   The secret to making America great again is to teach it how to think. If we train the mind to seek solutions, it will find them. If we start the practice of thinking as children,  the trait will continue with us when we become adults.
   Practice thinking, and you will get better at it -- the same as you get better at anything if you do it enough.
   It seems there was a time when all inventions (well, the large share) came out of America. Was this because our inventors breathed American air or touched American soil? Was there just something magical about living here? Was it because this nation was blessed? I might go along with that. Was it because of our education system? Surely, that must have been a factor.
   But, as much as any other reason, it must have been because Americans were thinkers. Whatever it was in their culture that spawned the art of thinking, I can only speculate. Perhaps it was a discussion of current events, whereas those living under authoritarian governments subjected themselves without giving thought to public issues. Public issues? There were none in some of these countries. You did what you were told and that was the end of it. You didn't even think about whether abortion was good or bad.
   Whatever brought it on, I might not know, for certain. But I would be certain America had more than its share of inventions only because it did more than its share of thinking. Thinking was a practice, and inventions were the result.
   If we are to make America great again, this will go a long ways in getting us there.
  One parting thought, that comes to me, just as I'm about to stop. Today, we also have great public debate. But, I wonder if we are more divided. I wonder if when people think, they pursue only reasons to believe what they already think. If they are against allowing too many immigrants in, they give thought only to that side of the argument, and reject anything from the other side.
  If a mind can be trained to think, it can also be trained against thinking. How you train a mind is how it works. Have we as a nation -- as we have become increasingly divided -- lost our ability to have open minds?
   We have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Maybe. As we lost our desire to be civil, we lost our ability to think.

Behind Every Industry is a Lobbyist, So what of the Education Industry?

  Education is good, but it can be an industry, and certainly is just that. Now, whenever you have an industry, you will have lobbyists from it. And, yes, whenever you have an industry, that industry will be contributing to the political campaigns of those it perceives will support it.
  Today, I read how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal would have guaranteed higher education to all Americans. And, I recalled looking up her political contributions and finding a good share came from the education industry. Do I see a connection here? Bless her, the same, as it is normal for a politician to say, I would support that cause, anyway, so it will not hurt if I take money from you.
   When it comes to political contributions, those from the education industry will surely be seen as benign, but are they? If everyone gets a higher education, there will be the maximum participation and thus greater profit for the industry.
   As I was concluding my thoughts on this, I returned to my Facebook feed and saw a post from one state legislator. He spoke with concern about how there is a move to make more education compulsory. Again, I wondered where the proposal is originating. Those from the industry surely are in favor, and it is quite possible their lobbyists are reaching politicians.
   We should consider this, then: that these proposals for education self-serve the education industry. We should not just blindly go along. We should think it all through and decide for ourselves if the proposals are good. 

If You are not here Legally, what Privileges should You have?

It is easy to suggest everyone -- regardless of whether born here or abroad, and regardless whether they come "illegally" -- should be allowed access to the justice of the courts.

A harder question is to take the phrase, "Freedom panders not to its own," and wonder if this means we should allow them access to our schools and our hospitals and our social programs.

If you aren't here legally, what privileges should you have?

I would say, if you do divide the questions -- if you do disregard the notion that they shouldn't have to ask for permission to be here -- then sometimes they are wrong. 

Do not fault them for accessing our emergency medical services, for you should not deprive anyone the right to live. But, elective care perhaps makes them thieves.

Their using our social net is sometimes wrong. I say sometimes, because sometimes they are paying into the tax system. Even then, though, if they are getting care by deceit, there is a wrongness in that. And, I say sometimes, because if they are in need of food just to survive, of course you give it to them -- without begrudging them. You don't starve another person.  You feed them without holding contempt for them. But, if the social program goes beyond just giving them sustenance, then perhaps consider them wrongful users.

But, through all of this, I cannot but feel that the wrongfulness of keeping them out does have something to do with all of this. You cannot completely un-attach the questions. If they belong here even without invite, then you cannot really say, Let's just take the ones who come illegally and ask ourselves if they are thieves. Belonging is belonging. Yes, if I am wrong in whether the Constitution and such says they should stay, then they are thieves.

But, if I am right -- if the Constitution and such does grant them their stay -- then it is not they who are thieves, but us. 

Freedom doesn't pander its own.

Some suggest rights are only for Americans, not for the undocumented. I believe, though, that the "for all" in the Pledge of Allegiance means liberty and justice are for all. In America, everyone has the right to justice. 

I think of how we are circumventing them out of our justice system -- screening them out. I think of how they come to the border asking that the court determine if they can come on refugee status. I think how we stop them, by only allowing so many such cases to be processed, thus making them wait in Tijuana for months, knowing that the fewer cases we hear, the fewer refugees we will have to allow.

I cannot understand how we do not see the injustice in this.

There may be other ways in which we place ourselves, being born here, ahead of the immigrants, both those who come legally and those who come without approval. For one, I think of our insistence that they be required  to speak our language. To all this, I suggest,
Freedom creates not privilege just for its own, but, by its nature, treats everyone equal.  

Wisdom starts not with a roadblock that says it is all in the past, but with an invitation that says it has a future. 

Only in giving in to the night will you find strength to face the day.

   Freedom extends its own invitations, and nations cannot retract them. If freedom should be open to all, nations should not pick and choose who gets it. 

War is won with guns, but peace preserved without them. 

When freedom excludes the poor, it deprives those it could help the most. 

Our forefathers didn't fight that their decisions should rule us, but that we should be free to make our own decisions.

 There is great wisdom in the Constitution. It is a powerful and wonderful document. But, if it took wisdom to write it, it will also take wisdom to apply it to each and every situation. If it took wisdom to establish our freedoms, it will take wisdom to preserve them. 

  Some believe the God shuttered the heavens once the Bible was written. There can be no more revelation, for all God has to say is all contained in the Bible, they say. They call it blasphemous to suppose there are truths outside the Bible.

  Even so it is with us. We consider the Constitution should be a closed document. All the wisdom of the forefathers is sufficient for the future. We consider not that if freedom is to endure, so must wisdom.

   Our forefathers fought not that every word they said would never be questioned, but that we be given the right to have our own wisdom, and make our own decisions. The wisdom of the past is but a shaky framework if it is not supported by wisdom of the present. 

Freedom is not found in conviction before crime.

Freedom offers bridges instead of building walls. 

You will always be at war if you are using the weapons of war.

Freedom is seen as the power to disagree, but it functions best when people come to agreement. 

Freedom sets free those who oppose it.
-

Silencing the opposition is the object of a despot. 

Freedom is heard never so loud 

as is the roar of its guns.

Freedom is won with wars, but it must be preserved with peace. 

War is only won with guns, but peace only prevails without them.

You will always be at war

 if you use the weapons of war. 

Freedom doesn't prohibit people from living under its banner. 

You don't protect freedom with rules keeping people on the outside, but with rules for once they reach the inside.

Freedom comes not with force 

and not with fences.

You don't protect it with walls, but with rules. 

If it took wisdom to establish our nation, it will take wisdom to preserve it.

Is the Watchful Eye of Freedom Blinking?

   The watchful eye of freedom should not miss such an attack.
   What if someone had called for a removal of guns? The outcry, of course, would have been instant and immense.
   So, as news broke that the Mueller report would not indict him, did President Trump really call for firing some media members who had opposed him?
   Get rid of guns, and that's trouble. But, get rid of media members, and that's not a concern?
   It is said that the Second Amendment is there to protect the other amendments. As long as we have our guns, we can defend the other freedoms.
   Like, say, freedom of the press?
   I saw no gun rights advocates picking up their weapons and marching on Washington when Trump called for getting rid of some of the press.
   Of course I do not really expect them to do so. Of course I do not really want them to. But, I do wish we could see that trying to silence the press should be seen as just a grave a danger as trying to take away guns.
   Worse, I would say.
   For the president of the United States to call for the firings of those who have opposed him -- should we be shrugging our shoulders at this?
  When a despot comes to power, he silences his foes. We may argue that President Trump is not a despot and times are not so dire But, when an individual acts like a despot, you must wonder if he would be one if only he really had the power.
   If Trump could -- if he really did have the power to fire these people -- would he?
   I think he would.
 

Investigation Came to a Quick End Once Barr Assumed Office

   Jan. 25, 2019 -- Roger Stone is indicted on seven charges. This marks the last indictment to come out of the Mueller investigation. All of the indictments that did take place took place before William Barr assumed office as attorney general.
   Feb. 14, 2019 -- Barr assumes office. Not a whole lot more than a month later, it is announced that the Mueller investigation is ended. Of course. there were reports before Barr took office that the investigation would be ending. Time and time again had it been speculated the investigation would end, but only after Barr took office did the investigation come to a quick shut-down.
 

The Law Should Warn Barr of the Liability of not Releasing the Report

  William Barr should release the Mueller Report in its entirety, instead of just summarizing it. The law says:
   "Whoever corruptly . . . alters . . . or conceals a . . . document . . . with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . ."
  If Barr leaves it to a summary, he leaves himself open to charges he altered the report. Is not a summary an altering? If he does not release the full thing, he is concealing that document. Even if you provide a summary, you are still concealing the document, itself.
   Yes, it does say he must have intent to impair the integrity of the report. But, considering the background of his hiring, he is certainly open to concern that he is trying to impair what the report actually says.

Turn Back to the Kavanaugh Affair, and Wonder if Trump Earned Prison

   Set the Mueller investigation aside, and turn to U.S. Code. Read it. Wonder if our President did not violate it. No, I'm not talking of his firing James Comey, or getting rid of Jeff Sessions, or any of those situations.
  No, I'm not talking of anything that likely fits under the Mueller investigation. As I said, set that aside.
  I'm speaking of the Kavanaugh hearings. I'm thinking back to those reports in which we heard of how the White House used its power to limit the scope of that investigation.
  Go ahead and read the law:
  "Whoever knowing uses intimidation . . . with intent to . . . cause . . . any person to . . . withhold testimony . . . evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness . . . or . . . hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer . . . information relating to the . . . possible commission of a Federal offense . . . shall be fined. . . or imprisoned not more than 20 years . . ."
   Is our president liable to serve up to 20 years in prison?
   Did anyone ever investigate the president of the reports that he sought to limit who the FBI spoke to in the Kavanaugh investigation? Because if he did do that, it seems clear he was in violation of the law.
   You might argue that the law says you must use intimidation to be guilty of this crime. Using the office of president of the United States is a high form of intimidation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

Those quick to hate are the same people as those  quick to judge. 

Hatred refuses to look truth in the eye.

Hatred spits at others even when they are clean. 

Hatred finds its enemy before it finds its reason.
-

Hatred blinds itself to good in others. 

Hatred finds enemies where enemies need not be found. 

Hatred mounts an attack when there is no reason for an attack. It cries, "Charge," and then goes in search of an enemy.

Hatred is the author of many lies. 

Hate sprints to lies and falsehoods about others. It races to deceit. 

Lies allowed to linger stay til truth is dead.

Hatred is not patient to get the facts, but anxious to dismiss facts that get in the way.

Opinions can be wrong, but that does not mean it is wrong to have them. 

There can be none so prideful as those who would pray for others, if they are suggesting their prayer is to help you see that they are right and you are wrong. 

Hatred does not care for what is true, but only for what it can misconstrue.

Hatred is not a fair player. It does not care for the facts, but only how it can twist the facts. 

Yesterday's lies bring tomorrow's demise.

The praises of the gun are the songs of death.

If we let guns become our compass, 
we will lose our direction.

If the gun were a plant, its fruit would be death. 

The smoke from a gun's barrel is the shadow of death. 

When the gun becomes sacred, 

death becomes religion.

Only in America 

does the gun hide behind patriotism.

It exacts its toll, yet we keep on saluting it.

Those who salute the gun, 
often salute the taking of lives.

Those who honor the gun, often find honor in taking another person's life. They see the death of their victim as a service to humanity. They have erased  someone from existence, someone who didn't deserve to live. And, in this, they take their pride.

Think of the man who killed so many in the mosques of New Zealand. Was not he a proponent of guns, and did he not think he was doing everyone a favor by killing these Muslims?

The invention of the gun was the automation of murder. With the gun, came touch-button murder: A person needed but to touch a trigger, and the killing was done. 

When you lie in a bed with the gun, the sleep that comes is permanent. Eyes that shut, never open again. We, as a nation, have gone to bed with the gun. We have accepted it as our sleeping partner. And, I fear that our eyes have already closed to the danger of that which we park right next our beds. I fear our eyes will never open to see the truth.

I pledge allegiance to the gun, of the United States of America, and to the deaths for which it brings --- one nation, under fire -- with it being justice that the gun be given the liberty to kill us all.

When your toys come with bullets,

you're playing with death.

Those who take the gun in their hands, 

take life in their hands. 

When Toys Come with Bullets, the Game is Called Death

  The trouble with the gun is that it is not a toy. And we live in a world that thinks it is.
  Think of the hunting accidents. Think of the times the gun goes off inadvertently, killing someone. Think of the times people get the gun out to play with it, and what ends up playing out is death.
   A bomb would never be a toy, and neither should a gun. We wouldn't let our children -- teenagers though they be -- get a bomb out of the closet and start playing with it. Granted, we wouldn't have a bomb in the closet, to begin with. Guns are there to protect against crime. The bomb has no such purpose. So, we don't keep bombs around.
   But, the point is, the gun is no more a toy than a bomb.
   And, say we did keep a mild form of a bomb around, say a firecracker. It, too, can bring death and harm when played with.
   When weapons become toys, life becomes death.
   I heard a story today. If I heard it correctly, some kids were playing with a gun, and one of them must have gotten upset, and shot and killed his friend. They played with the gun as if it were a toy, and it was more of a bomb, instead.
  I heard another story today, about how a musician was using a gun to film a music video, and it went off and shot him in his face, killing him. Bless him. Wonderful musician, I'm told. But, the toy he played with was part of a game he could not win. When it went off, the playing was over.
   Don't play with fire, it is said. And some forms of fire are these things that fire.
   I don't know that I fault the musician. He was but using something as a tool to make a great video. But, he underestimated the danger, and the danger exacted his life. He is not alone. We live in a world where the gun is too often played with and ends up doing a world of harm.
   We play with the gun as if it's a toy. But when it goes off, the playing is over.

Ours is a War against the Poor

  I google and find the headlines:
  "In El Paso Jails, Immigrants Are Incarcerated Far Past Their Release Dates"
  "Trump administration starts 'remain in Mexico' policy in El Paso, Texas"
   And, I think how all this amounts to a war on the poor.
   I think of the military being called in. I think of the family separations. I think of the tear-gassings. Ours is a war against these people
  You probably will not contest the suggestion that it is a war, of sorts, what with all the efforts to stop these migrants from coming. But, you might take issue with the thought that the war is on the poor.
   It is, though.
   That they are coming at all is in large part because they are poor. Oh, they run from the violence, and they run from their governments, but a lot of what they are running from is poverty. Those who oppose them coming even make it part of their argument, saying they are not coming so much for asylum as for economic reasons.
   These are the poor. And, we are fighting them off. Our war is a war on the poor. And, we fight them at every juncture. We jail them upon their arrival, and we keep them incarcerated beyond their release dates. We seek to build walls against them, claiming they are an invading force.
   If we would but look at the pictures of these people, as we see them in the news, we should surely recognize the faces of poverty. Who, then, is our war against?

Wish there were a Story giving the Immigrants' Reactions

  "We are overjoyed! This is why we came to America -- to be joined with our family. And, so, we will be going to stay with our daughter and her husband, in Duarte."
   So said -- or so an immigrant could have said -- upon being released from a detention center in California. The Trump Administration has started releasing some from the holding centers, saying they are overcrowded, and they have no choice but to let some of them go.
   No, the quote above is not an actual one. I don't know that the immigrants are even being interviewed, that we should learn how they feel about their releases. But, I imagine if many of them were interviewed, it would be a wonderful story, piquing America's interest and bringing sympathy for the immigrants.
   Wish there were such a story.

It's the rhythm and ring of a poem
It's the sing and the sound and such
If you would to write good poetry
Remember, it's all in the touch

From the Seeds of the Past Comes the Overgrowth of Today

  I and my buddy Paul Simon are calling for an investigation.
  "The mama pajama rolled out of bed
  "And she ran to the police station
  "When the papa found out he began to shout
   "And he started the investigation."
   A lot of sleeping has been done since the Kennedy assassination. And the Mama Pajama rolls out of bed, so to speak, and gets on down to the police station. I've just got a wondering that maybe we ought to roll out of bed, and get down the police station. The Papa needs to shout, and there needs to be a new investigation.
  I've never given much mind to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. I don't even know enough about them to distinguish between them and what are considered the real possibilities of what happened.
  I remember so little, I find myself having to look up Jack Ruby to learn he wasn't Kennedy's killer, but the killer of Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the killer of Kennedy. So, thinking Ruby must also be dead, I look it up and find out he died in prison, 1967. Convenient. Silenced. From Oswald to Ruby, a chain of silence. We never did learn if this was coincidence. We slept on it, instead. We went to sleep and now Mama Pajama needs to roll out of bed.
  Maybe Jack Ruby did suffer from terminal illness. Maybe the death was natural enough. I don't know. But, I think we should be looking into it, yet.
  Lee Harvey lived in Russia at one time. I don't know if the idea the Russians might have been involved is considered a conspiracy theory, of if that is something the conspiracists themselves laugh at. So, we have the murder of an American president, and we wonder if the Russians were involved. And we have the election of another American president, and we wonder how the Russians were involved. Is there a connection all the way back? If we would learn about Russia's current involvement, should we not look down the thread running all the way back to the Kennedy assassination? Isn't there some basic logic to doing this?
   As I'm think on all this, I think how Russia has long been a propagandist entity. We look at their involvement today, and it is as if we suppose they just started messing with us, not doing so until the advent of the Internet and social media.
   Well, maybe we should guess again. Maybe they've been around all along. They might have had different ways, and maybe they've become empowered more since social media burst on the scene, but the Russians have been the Russians all along. And, so, if they were into propagandizing us then, was the Kennedy assassination something they tried to influence our opinion on? And, what was the angle they sold? What was the message they spread? And, how did they go about selling their tale, back before the Internet?
  "And he started the investigation"? Let's fire up a new one.
  I find myself wondering about the investigation of the Kennedy affair. It seems they should have been able to find out what happened, what Lee Harvey Oswald's role was, and what role Jack Ruby played. Yes, I tend to think they should have been able to come up with some answers.
   No, I'm not studied on this. But, I think I know enough to know that they didn't find many answers. It strikes me as odd: an investigation by some of the world's best investigators and yet they can't lay their fingers on what was behind it all.
   So, me and Paul call for a new investigation. (Okay, I don't know that the singer would join in my cry for an investigation, but Mama Pajama and Papa surely ought to be wondering what happened.) Once the Mueller Investigation is over -- or maybe even as part of it -- we should reopen the investigation of the Kennedy assassination. And we should -- as part of it -- investigate the investigation. We should determine if the original investigation was a sincere and serious one. The agents of the present should investigate the agents of the past.
   There are many who question Mueller. I have fewer qualms. I like him and many others who have been involved, including James Comey. I think we are blessed with men of integrity in them.
   Let them, then, turn their investigation back more than 50 years. Let them brush the sands of time off the murder of one of our most beloved presidents in search of clues to as to all that is going on about us today.
  In the seeds of the past are the tumbleweeds of today, maybe.

Temptations find only those who are lost. 

The Intoxication is the Same

   After writing yesterday's blog, and alluding to how the prideful become intoxicated with anger,  and reel to and fro like a drunken person, my memory is turned to an account in the Book of Mormon in which the combatants, likewise, were intoxicated with anger.
   The people of Shiz and the people of Coriantumr, fighting to their deaths, to the total destruction of that society.
   I open my scriptures in search of the passage, and find my eyes falling directly on the verse, Ether 15:22.
   "And when the night came they were drunken with anger, even as a man who is drunken with wine and they slept again upon their swords."
   The same anger displayed in war can be had in public debate. The same hatred of the other faction can be felt. The same intoxicating feelings can be present. The combatants of in the Book of Mormon -- the people of Shiz and the people of Coriantumr -- "were drunken with anger." Even so, Democrats and Republicans are intoxicated in their hatred of each other today. They sleep upon their swords, so to speak, as they are asleep to the fact they are prideful. Pride is their weapon, and they sleep upon it.
   Anger is anger, whether in war or verbal confrontations. If you can be intoxicated, so to speak, in one situation, you can be intoxicated in the other. That is all I'm saying.
  And the destruction of the nation? That Book of Mormon nation was totally destroyed. America may not be so unfortunate. Still, the intoxication of anger and the warfare between Republicans and Democrats is a harmful force. As surely as it was dangerous and harmful then, it remains dangerous and harmful today. Principles do not change, only the situations they play out in.

 

Pride lusts after the faults of others.

Do We find in America, a Nation of Pride?

  Divisions come with pride. Society breaks apart when it bickers. We can see we are a divided nation, but we have not perceived it is because of our pride.
  Look around: The Democrats feel they are too good for the Republicans and the Republicans feel they are too good for the Democrats. What is this if not pride? If you look down your nose at the other person, is that not pride?
  Calling another person an idiot, and a fool, is that not but a way of expressing that you are better than the other person? It is the prideful person that puts another person down, not the humble.
   You must wonder then, if there was ever a nation of pride, are we not just about it? So much bickering and nitpicking is only going to happen when people think they are better than those they accuse.
  The destruction of a nation comes with the pride of its people. Those who follow scripture know of the warnings. "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall," Proverb 16:18 tells us. Those who are of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a book called The Book of Mormon and sometimes suggest pride led to the downfall of people written about in that book.
   Yet, I do not think they see in themselves the very manifestation of pride that they seek to avoid. By nature, pride does not admit it is wrong. So, it would not be easy to persuade our nation of what it has become.
   A nation of pride. A nation of haughty spirits. A nation of reviling one against another.
  With pride comes division, and with division comes destruction. Whether the division ferments all the way to war, it intoxicates, just the same. Those who bicker, search for reason to bicker. They relish opportunity to fight and condemn. They seek out faults in others and embellish them. They lust after the faults of others. They are intoxicated, reeling to and fro in their anger with each other. They are blinded by their own hatred, not even able to see that their hearts are full of hatred for each other and that they are full of pride.
   America should ask if it has become this -- if what I see really applies. Are we a nation of pride? Is it not reflected in the way we put each other down? We put down those of the other party. Do we do so too much? We put down those in our government. Governments will always have reason for scrutiny, but does our criticism come too quickly and does it go too far? Do we think ourselves better than those who lead us? Is there not some pride in such an attitude?
   How far carries our pride, and will it carry us to a destruction quicker than a lack of guns?

(Note: Lightly edited 3/18/19)

Neither team wins when sportsmanship is lost.

Words Unspoken are Lessons Unlearned

   Words unspoken leave lessons unlearned. Gail Miller could have let the moment pass, and not stood up at half court before the Jazz game against the Timberwolves to decry racism.
   For what she did, I nominate her as teacher of the week.If you would quell racism, you must speak against it. If you would curb any wrongful activity, you should speak against it. Your words may not reach the person you speak most directly too -- in this case Jazz fan Shane Keisel -- but they might discourage others from thinking the same way as him.
   "I am extremely disappointed that one of our quote 'fans' conducted himself in such a way as to offend not only a guest in our arena, but also me personally, my family, our organization, the community, our players and you, as the best fans in the NBA," Miller said.
   I'm not sure I would have used the same language. I might even have thanked Keisel for being a fan while expressing displeasure with what he did. But, I think it wonderful that Miller stood up and said such conduct as Keisel's is not condoned.. I truly believe her high-profile appeal will lead to fewer fans conducting themselves in such a fashion.
   Lessons are not learned if they are not taught.
   "This should never happen. We are not a racist community. We believe in treating people with courtesy and respect as human beings. From time to time, individual fans exhibit poor behavior and forget their manners; some disrespect players on other teams. When that happens, I want you to jump up and shout 'stop.' We have a code of conduct in this arena. It will be strictly enforced," Miller said.
  Only if you tell someone they are doing something wrong will they be less likely to do it. Adults are children, too, and must be corrected like the children they are.
  "The other teams are not our enemies; they are our competition," Miller said, conveying a wonderful lesson. We should not treat competing teams with contempt, but as friends in competition.
   Miller also protected the integrity of the team and community, by making it clear that such racism as Keisel displayed is not representative of Utah as a whole. While I will fear there is too much of it -- that there are those sympathetic to what Keisel said -- I believe we as a community should distance ourselves from those such as Keisel. We make it clear we do not feel the same as he does, so there is no question as to what our beliefs are.
  "No one wins when respect goes away," Miller said. I would say, No one wins when respect is lost. When you conduct yourself in an ill manner -- in a way that loses respect -- you are not a winner, regardless the score -- and, this goes for fan conduct as well as the conduct of players. If Keisel's conduct had been allowed to stand as a representation of the Utah and the Jazz organization, we would have lost even if we had won the game.
   Neither team wins when sportsmanship is lost.
   Nor does it go unnoticed on me that players on the Jazz stood up against Keisel. Though the fan was on their team, they did not shunt the event quietly aside and just hope it would go away. They boldly spoke against it. Others in the community also spoke out. I say, wonderful. The more who speak against it, the clearer it is that this is not us. And, the more likely it will be that those who have such bigotry will be likely to change and see that what they do it wrong.
   I do offer one parting thought. Though what Keisel did is wrong, and though we want to make it clear what he did is wrong, we should be forgiving of him. Even in the moment of rebuking him, we should be gentle. Persuasion is not made in harsh words, but kind.
   Plus, it is not a rebuke of one person, but many, for there is scattered among our community others who share Keisel's feelings. If alienate them, you fail to reach them. More than that, if you offend them, you only drive them deeper into their dispositions. For all the need to make this a moment when we teach against racism, we must not let go of our commitment to tolerate the beliefs of others. This can mean respecting those who do not respect you. You can -- and should -- try to persuade a person to not be a bigot. But, if they remain one, you should love them, the same. And, loving another person means being gentle with them.

(Note: End of blog added 3/17/19) 

You must rely not just on having a fresh slate to write on, but on having something fresh to write.

A new canvass calls for new paint.

Too often, our friends are our judges once, and then our friends no more.

Those who escape their pasts are those who find their futures.
-

  We are travelers in life, and those who travel lightly travel best. 

Those who bring too much luggage will be refused entrance on the flight.

A New Canvass Demands New Paint

   Give a gladiator a new arena, and he may prove a new and better warrior.
   Ever notice how when players pass from the college to professional ranks, some emerge bigger even though the level of competition they're playing against has increased?
   What's up with that?
   Having a clean slate to draw on can make a difference. Part of it perhaps is that the new coaches and teammates offer different judgments, and thus give the player different chances.
  But, much of it is in the player himself, and his own self judgments. When he sees new challenges and opportunities, does he determine to be equal to them? He can reset his self beliefs at any time, but when given a new start, that is when he is most likely to do so. A new frontier can bring a new resolve.
  We are travelers in life, and those who travel lightly travel best. Those who don't carry too much luggage exit the terminals the quickest. Those who escape their pasts are those who find their futures. Whether it is the basketball player moving from college to pro, or the person moving from one town to another, a fresh start can offer fresh opportunities. But you must not rely not just on having a fresh slate to slate to write on, but on having something fresh to write. A new canvass is but occasion for new paint.
 

One Dog Sleeping in the Living Room Beats Two Guns next to Your Bed

   The gun-sniffing dog: perhaps an answer to the gun. In a world where we all go out and buy guns to protect our homes, maybe instead we should buy gun-sniffing dogs.
   Millions of homes protect with the gun. Now, how many of them rely on this alternative -- which may be even better -- instead.
   We must wonder if there are none.
    Gun-sniffing dogs are trained to smell ammunition by smelling gun power. With no more than a single bullet present and though it hasn't been shot, the dog can pick up the scent. Buy one of these wonderful canine friends and let him guard your home all night. He'll awake if someone comes in. He'll be on them well before they reach you. He'll attack and disable the gunman before a shot is even fired. And, if he doesn't get there before the intruder fires the gun, it is him taking the shot, not you.
   Dogs can be trained. I'm not saying train the dog to kill, or to even do much physical harm. Just train him to disarm the gunman, and then to not allow the gunman to re-pick up the gun. Train the same dog to be gentle with the kids. What you train the dog to be determines how dangerous an approach this will be.
   Well, I don't know if this will work. It hasn't been tried, to my knowledge. But, it certainly seems, it could. In a world where guns have been our only answer to those who would invade our homes, this might be even better.
   One dog sleeping in the living room beats two guns sitting on the nightstand.

The Westbrook-Keisel Dust-up Makes Us Wonder if Racism is Common

   Read about the Jazz fan who was banned after an altercation with Russell Westbrook. Wonder if Utah is a state where racism is common. Or is if this fan is an aberration? Yes, it just takes just a few to paint all of Jazzdom and all of Utah badly. Is that what has happened? Or, are there a number among us here in Utah who are of the same cloth as the Jazz fan, Shane Keisel?
  One way to get a feel for how much bigotry there is, is to read the comment threads beneath the online news stories? How many justify Keisel and what he did?
  There is nothing about Russell Westbrook to suggest he is a person who gets down on his knees this way. Yes, it does seem he was referring to a group of people who were once caused to be subservient. Those who suggest Keisel was referring to something else . . . yes, we must wonder about them. Some of them might be innocent in their reasoning, and others not.
 

Few wars are won without battles lost.

You can be defeated without being conquered. An unconquerable spirit is one that refuses to yield even to defeat.

Time to Exit the WCC?

  In light of BYU's humiliating first round pummeling in the conference tournament, what is to be said?
  There's a visible decline in Coach Dave Rose's program since joining the West Coast Conference in 2011.  Five years running before joining the conference, you make the Dance, with the last year being your most successful there, going to the Sweet Sixteen. You make the NCAA tournament the first year after joining the WCC, and again two years later, then are a play-in team the following year. Yes, you got to the NIT semifinals twice, but the past two years, you've exited the NIT in the first round. The pattern is clear: You've declined steadily since joining the WCC.  Whether there are other things going on and it's a coincidence you've declined while in the WCC, who knows.
   Maybe you stay the course. Maybe the WCC is developing and you should remain a part of it. Seven of the ten teams had winning records this year.  That the seventh seed pummeled you -- what does that say? That you are bad, or that the conference is deep and good?
  Then again, Gonzaga has waltzed through the league this year,  its average margin of victory being 26.3 points per game. That speaks of a woeful conference, not a blossoming one.
   Maybe it's time to call the WCC a bad experiment -- get out before the next season rolls in, if you can.
   But, no sooner do I write the line above than I read how St. Mary's knocked off No. 1-ranked Gonzaga 60-47 in the conference championship. I reconsider. I wonder but what BYU should stay the course, remain in the conference, and help build it into a stronger and more respected conference.

Success can come from Pictures of Success

  If I were a coach, I'd want my players to imitate the mentality of champions. I'd want them to have the same look in their eyes that the heroes of the game have. You can tell much about a player by the look is his eyes. There is the look of fear, which you don't want, and there is the look of determination, which you do.
  We are imitators, we are. So, if you want to be a winner, place the face of the winner front and center before your team. Pull out all the Michael Jordan tapes you can. Find the up close, facial-views, and play them for your players just before the games. When your film crews film games, tell them to zoom in on the faces. When your players are at their best, enjoying their best moments, film them and film their faces
  The expressions and countenance of a winner are infectious. If you want your players to have the right mentality, show them a picture of it. Winning can come by assimilation, if you assimilate the feelings of a winner.
   Here's something that isn't being done in coaching, that I'm aware of. I'd do it.

Lauren's Law would have an Impact

  Lauren's Law: If you lend a gun out, and someone uses it to commit a felony, you can be sued.
  Lauren McCluskey, University of Utah star track athlete, was killed with  a borrowed gun. So, they drafted a bill, and tried to get it through the Utah Legislature. Named it after her. Yes, Lauren's Law.
  It won't get passed. But perhaps it should. The man who shot McCluskey, Melvin Rowland, was a felon. If we can see felons shouldn't have guns, and we see they are still getting hold of them, why would we not do something about it?
  If you can see a law would make a difference -- even if just a little bit of a difference -- why not enact that law?
  If you knew someone was a felon, and they asked you to let them use your gun, and you knew you'd be liable if they went out and committed a crime with it -- wouldn't that severely affect whether you lent them the gun?
  With all the shootings in America, and all the attention they receive, and all the anguish over doing something about it, we should be jumping to take some kind of action. If we see a law that would make a difference, we should pounce on it. If this will reduce the chances of guns falling into the hands of felons, that is exactly what we want to do.
   Tell me, tell me, then, why a law such as this should not be passed. Amend it, if you must, so that only you are liable only when the weapons is given to a felon. At lease pass that.

When the course heads you south, you gotta turn north.

   When things go wrong, if you do not do something to correct them, you should realize they are only going to continue. We speak of taking action. If you do not do something to change the course, you should not expect your troubles to vanish. You must think through what is going on and consider what can be done to counter it. Change of course usually doesn't come by chance. You must make a conscious decision to change the course. The car doesn't get turned around without using the steering wheel.

If freedom is free, it must be given away. It doesn't come with a sign, saying, Do Not Enter.

That which you grip too tightly

 always slips away

   If you would hold a balloon, hold it loosely, for if you squeeze it, it will either burst or burst from your hands. What is the old thought -- that too much love can smother the person you are giving it to?  I think of the words from the .38 Special song.
     Just hold on loosely
     But don't let go
     If you cling too tight babe
     You're gonna loose control
     Your baby needs someone to believe in
     And a whole lot of space to breathe in
     Don't let her slip away
   This principle applies to our hopes and dreams and aspirations, as much as it does our relationships with others. That which we think we cannot live without becomes that which we cannot have. Not always, of course. And, not even usually. But, there are times when we squeeze a dream so tightly, it pops.
   We must know the difference between holding onto a dream, and squeezing it too tightly. That which can be cradled, can be dreamed about. That which you rock gently, might rock the world. But, the baby is tender. Always if you squeeze too tightly, harm will be done. Always.  
  

America, America
The tears of the forefathers fall for you
That your mercy is no more than this
That your justice falls so raggedly

America?
Can you not see an error
--A flaw --
A betrayal of that for which you stand

Look, my country
To the bondage of innocence
To the bondage you bring upon the poor

You are a proud people
-- O mighty America --
A nation too good for them
A nation that sees in the poor, an enemy
A nation that sees in them, a crime

Pride finds no more fertile soil
Than it does in its own

If you, America
Will not share your soil
You will only have your pride
Your welfare might be overwhelmed
With or without 
The immigrant
Your economy might falter
Even on its own
And you will be left with your haughty spirit
And it alone

America, blessed land, though you are
-- Though you be --
Where do you draw your borders
Inside of justice, or out
Inside of mercy, or out

You are a nation that demands
A license of those who would have liberty
Consider on that, my land
-- That you should demand they get a license
in order to practice your version of liberty

Liberty is lost
When license is required

America
Can you not see
The error
Of taking the power you have to reject
-- For, yes, you have "the right" to reject --
And using it

Rights and powers should be used to protect and edify
The People
-- All people
When rights and powers are used to oppress
Or to reject
Or to deprive others of freedom
Or peace
-- When power is used for injustice --
That is the reign of kings

America, my beloved land
Despots rule over
Whether the despot be one
Or many
A nation that sees itself
As having the right to deprive others
Of freedom
And justice
And peace
Is but a nation of despots

America
I would have this word with you
To say
Trouble brews with freedom
When all people no longer have the right to be free.

Can you pick and choose
Who you will give it to
Can you pick and choose
Who your freedom will be for

Take it from the criminal
Take it from those of crime
They are the rightful
Occupants of prisons

But, a mistake is made
When you take the good
The poor
And toss them in your prison cells
And call it freedom
And call yourself a land of liberty

America
Rights and powers should be
Used for love and not for hate

Look inside your soul
And wonder
If you are a land of pride
If you are a land of mercy

Of if you are a land of kings

The Immigration Harm is More Phobia than Fact

  In February, there came a breaking point. Perhaps rushing to get in ahead of a wall that could be built, perhaps rushing to take advantage of law saying families could only be held in traditional detention facilities for 72 hours, and perhaps because they were being denied entry at the ports of entry . . .
  They rushed the border. Extraordinary numbers: More than 76,000 of these "illegal aliens" came without permission.
   I wonder at the debate against them. Each person to their opinion. And, yes, wonderful people are against them coming. Border phobia, to me. People fear their coming because they suppose they will overrun our land. They oppose them coming because they cannot see how we can absorb so many. They don't want them coming because they say they will crush our social net.
   Mostly, they don't want them coming because they see their being here as a violation of law.
  These are poor people, for the most part. They seek a better life. Some flee from government oppression, and many flee from gangs and violence.
   We fear them, because we fear they bring the gangs with them.
   Border phobia, I call it. Fear that if a person crosses a line, it will bring damage to those on the other side.
   So, 76,000 of them came? Are there any early reports that they are overwhelming our hospitals? Any news, yet, on whether they are rushing to apply for welfare? Have some of them already joined up with the MS-13? The news should get on these stories. If this is the damage we fear, then let us get right on the coverage of it.
   I don't doubt some of such things could be found. But, I will tell you this, there is more phobia involved than fact.
 

Good words are lost in much verbiage. 

Dreams become reality 
only when belief reaches into unreality.
--

The Migrant is but a Soldier of Fortune

  The migrant is but a soldier who seeks fortune in another land. He fights not to conquer, but to be allowed in hostile territory. He goes there facing bullets, yet fires none in return. Instead, he fights for mercy, and the right to work, and the right to share home with family that came before him.
  He is a freedom fighter, for he fights for his own freedom, and for the freedom on those who come with him. Mention things that are good -- work and family -- and these are the things he fights for.
  He aims not to kill and shoots not to harm, in fact, he shoots no bullets at all. But, if bullets were bread and bread were bullets, they'd be everything he's about. He works for his bread, and his work brings bread to others.
   You may fear this soldier of fortune. You may claim he does fire bullets that kill. You may point to the gangs and violence and drug running, and blame it all on him. But, I would ask that you examine his clothing. Look at his dress. Look at the uniform he wears. It is the uniform of a day laborer, and the dress of the poor. If you would know the uniform, know then, what type of soldier this is, for the garb of the soldier defines his purpose.
   You may still resist my thought. And, I will confess all these soldiers of fortune do not come without some of them coming for harm. But, I will tell you those are the deserters, those are those who leave the ranks of this army of good.
   The evil you find among the immigrants are not the soldiers who live up to their pledge. No. those are the deserters of a cause that is good.

Rip apart Their Minds, if You would Coach Them well

  If I were a coach, I'd know my players -- and their thoughts. At least, as much as I could.
  If you know the thoughts of a player, you know why he won or lost. If you want to dissect a game, dissect the thoughts of those who played it. No one doubts that the mental attitude of a player determines whether he  plays well, so why don't we dissect that, as much as anything? Don't just roll the game film, roll the player's thoughts.
   It's a little harder, of course. There is no game film on players' thoughts. But, if you really want to figure out why you won or lost, this is what you must do.
  "I need you to be honest with me, Donovan," I said to my star player. "I need to know what thoughts were going through your head between the game with Milwaukee and the one with New Orleans."
   We won the Milwaukee game, coming from 17 down in the fourth quarter. Donovan amassed 46 points on 32 shots. Then, at Milwaukee? He shot but 33 percent, scoring just 19 points on 24 shots. If the difference was mental, what were the attitudes, thoughts and fears that made the difference?
  Where was the confidence lost?
  Did you fear you wouldn't be able to duplicate Milwaukee? Were you excited about New Orleans, or was there a drop off in excitement? And, what about during the game, when New Orleans went ahead at the end? Did you experience some panic?
   Come on, be honest. I'm not just your coach, I'm your therapist. And, if we are going to figure out what went wrong, we need to determine what thoughts went wrong. We can't fix it if we don't know where it's broken.
 

Freedom of Speech should be for the Christian, too

   Freedom is not for Christians, or so it would sometimes seem. I speak of the edict to not mix politics and religion. I speak of the decree that public officials should not be bringing their religion into their discussions and debate and decisions. I speak of the sentiment that you should not discuss religion and politics at work, or at social gatherings.
   Are not such rules, rules against free speech? Are they not incursions of free speech? What do we say -- that the atheist can bring all his beliefs, and all his influences, but the Christian must check his at the door?
   I do wonder but what this is discrimination. A Christian's tongue should not be bridled while the atheist is left to speak. The beliefs of some should not be free to be expressed, while the beliefs of others are not. The topics of entertainment and sports should not be free to discussion, while the topics of politics and religion are taboo.
   In America, we might have freedom of speech, but we do not have full freedom of speech.

Defeat comes not in losing, 
but in lying down and losing. 

Even truth needs a stage. Truth without a stage, is but a story that goes untold. 

Character comes not from success, but from withstanding failure. -

After all my writing on character tonight, the phrase comes to my mind, "Character is forged in adversity," and it occurs to me that I may have heard that somewhere -- that it might not be original. So, I word search, and find that the quote, "Character is forged on the anvil of adversity," is an existing quote. It may have been coined by one Lance Hill, or it may have had its origin before he ever uttered it. 

The character of a man comes not from the heights he climbs to, but from the depths he endures.

Character is forged not from basking in the praise of men, but in weathering the onslaught of their tongues. It can also come not from living in opulence, but from living in poverty. It comes not from successes, but from withstanding failures. The only way to extract character from success is to be humble despite that success. Character comes not from basking in good weather, but from not succumbing to the storms of life. Good character is formed in a storm; It is not fashioned on a beach. Still waters may bring the soul peace, but raging ones move it forward faster. 

The best way to silence truth is to not hear it out.

If I were a Coach, Part II

  If I were a coach, I'd believe in my players. A player will only lose confidence in himself if he senses the coach doesn't believe in him.
  I would give them no reason not to believe in themselves.
  A coach is the coach. If he isn't giving you reason to believe in yourself, who will? It's his job.
  But, I would also be assessing my players, scouting them, finding their weaknesses as well as their strengths. If they weren't 48-minute players, but, rather, had tendencies to play better after long rests, I would want to know that.
   If I could coach them out of their weaknesses, I would. If I couldn't, I'd adjust my game plan.
   And, I'd not only notice their plus-minus, I would film their every move to see if they had anything to do with it. I'd have a camera rolling on each player. I'd study to see if there was anything each player did that might have contributed to a basket or to stopping a basket, looking for things that wouldn't show up in the stats. I'd say, Okay, we scored on this play. What were you doing? You weren't the one who scored, and you didn't make the assist, but did you do anything that did contribute? On the defensive end, I'd make the same type of analysis.
  Sometimes, it might be that you deferred. If there were hot players on the court, and you had the ball in your hands and gave it up, and the team eventually scored when the hot hand got the basket, you contributed. If you had instead forced up a shot, and missed, the team never would have scored. You need players who don't get in the way of success, as much as you do those who make it happen.

The America of 2019 is but a Reflection of the America of 1798

   Oh, these Alien and Sedition Laws, enacted way back in 1798, perhaps we should see in them a mirror of today's ways, and today's laws, and today's treatment of immigrants.
  The old adage, you know, says learn from history, or face repeating it. Look at our nation, then, and wonder if we are not repeating 1798.
   These were not good laws, you know. Read the first two paragraphs of an online article at ushistory.org and see if it is kindly towards them:
  "No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed? Is this the story of the Soviet Union during the Cold War?
  "No. It describes the United States in 1798 after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts."
  To our credit, we quickly overturned three of these laws. Back then, there were enough of our founding fathers who could see they were not good laws. Three of the four quickly expired or were repealed.
   Yes, learn of these Alien and Sedition Acts. Learn at the peril of seeing their reflections in our current laws. Would we cite them as precursors to our current immigration laws? I would. But, would we hail them as showing the founding fathers believed in the same austere approach to immigration that we are pursuing today? Some would, but I wouldn't, I would tell you the founding fathers ultimately rejected them. Not everyone thinks the same, and that would be as true of them back then as it is of us today. But, generally, the founding fathers rejected these laws.
   Learn, if you must, that Thomas Jefferson held them to be unconstitutional, and pardoned those convicted of them, and ordered the release of those who had been convicted of violating them.
   Thomas Jefferson, then, the first American practitioner of amnesty? Today, amnesty is a dirty word, but Jefferson appears to have been the inventor of its practice here in America. Amnesty: Ronald Reagan may have been its most famous American practitioner, but Thomas Jefferson was the first.
  There were four laws. I read that Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional. If we can trace some of the things common in today's immigration laws, we would be wise to reflect on Jefferson's thinking that these laws were all unconstitutional. We live in a day when many believe the Constitutional is behind our strict immigration laws, but learn of the things in these laws, considering all the while that Jefferson deemed them laws that were unconstitutional.
  Yes, consider these laws, and watch closely for those things that correspond to our beliefs today -- and wonder.
   The Naturalization Act of 1798 required immigrants to give five years notice if they intended to  become citizens, and it required them to live here 14 years before they were actually granted that citizenship. The act was repealed in 1802. If you take away the provisions of this act, immigrants could become citizens immediately upon moving to the United States. We must wonder, then, whether Jefferson felt depriving them of immediate citizenship was unconstitutional.
  There were no laws at the time restricting them from coming. The borders were open. People could come into America and live here at will. This law established but restrictions on how long they must wait once here before being granted the full rights of citizenship. If Jefferson considered this law unconstitutional, what was it he saw as unconstitutional? Could it be that the immigrants were not granted all the rights and privileges of others? Yes, if you take one group of people and deprive them of rights given to others, I can see how that could be considered unconstitutional -- how it is unconstitutional.
  Oh, and this is certainly of great interest: The Naturalization Act of 1798 was seen as an effort to prevent immigrants from coming and voting for those of the Democratic-Republican Party, as immigrants tended to be partial to that party. Even so, today, there is a fear immigrants will vote on the side of the Democrats,  so Republicans seek to carve them out.
   The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 authorized the president to deport any resident "alien" considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" And, so it is today, we seek to prevent terrorists and gang members and others from coming because we are concerned for the safety of the United States. I wonder whether Jefferson saw this as unconstitutional. For I am told he thought the Alien Enemies Act was unconstitutional, and that is the heart of Alien and Enemies Act.
  One thought: There may have been fear-mongering then, even as there is now, and many might have been branded as dangerous to America when they actually were not. I can see how Jefferson would think that would run against the Constitution.
   The third law, the Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to apprehend and deport those of foreign origin if their home countries were at war with the United States. This law has been modified, but remains in effect today. We think of the Japanese internment camps of World War II, wherein no less than about 110,00 people were rounded up and incarcerated in concentration camps simply for being of Japanese ancestry. Constitutional? This law was not repealed, but, the same, I did read that Jefferson thought all four laws were unconstitutional. Was this one an exception, despite my reading that Jefferson thought them all unconstitutional?
   And -- as we consider the mirror of these laws in our immigration laws today -- let us come more recent than World War II. What of when President Trump listed nations from which immigrants would be banned?
   This law, the Alien Enemies Act, was crafted by the same people who gave us the other three Alien and Sedition Laws, and it is made of the same fabric. It extends into our day as a relic of those same laws. Yes, it remains in effect, but we would do well to consider its repeal.
   Now, we have one more of these four laws to discuss. The Sedition Act made it a crime to print "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government. We cannot help but think of how President Trump has called for restrictions on what is said about him.
   History repeats itself. We are living now, as they did back then, when immigrants were painted as criminals, and when things in the press were seen in need of being repressed. Back then, the authority to suppress what was seen as dangerous immigration was left by these Alien and Sedition Acts to the president. Interestingly, today it also is the president leading the charge against immigration, and against a free press.
   If we were to brush the sands of time from off our mirror,  would we not see that 2019 is but a reflection of 1798?

(Note: Some portions rewritten 3/2/19)