Why is the United States in the condition it is now? Some wish to blame Republicans, others wish to blame Democrats. Fingers point to key political fingers like Pelosi, Trump, etc. but these personalities are not to blame - the root cause is the moral fiber of this great country is being eroded by those who resist any form of authority which might govern their lives. One chief authority being pushed out of public influence is religion. Religion provides a moral backbone to society and as we see religion reduced, we are seeing immorality and crime increase. The facts are truly undeniable:
(Downey, 2017a)
While Protestantism in the United States still leads, their numbers are dropping significantly over the last several years and at the same time the 'nones' are increasing at about the same rate - to the point that before 2040 the 'nones' will eclipse Protestantism. While Catholicism remains fairly steady, though slightly on the decline, from the research by Downey (2017b) the 'nones' are already eclipsing them in numbers.
Back to the point: In a recent Gallup poll (Brenan, 2019) of 21 issues which at one time all were considered immoral, one can see the moral imbalance:
So, my friends - or not my friends, why has President Trump NOT conceded yet? Quite simply, he's not stupid! Whether or not things are dictated to us by this news network or that one, they have no constitutional authority to tell us who the next president will be. We have laws, and we have the Constitution of the United States of America. The fact of the matter and the bottom line is, if the legal challenges continue up to January 6th, then the election and the electoral college become null and void. At THAT POINT the responsibility of selecting the next president goes to the House of Representatives. Immediately most who favor Vice President Biden will feel comforted since the Democrats have the majority in the House - but HOLD ON! What I am telling you and am about to tell you is straight out of the 12th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. At the point of the House of Representatives making the choice, each representative does NOT get one vote, no! Each state gets one vote! How does this matter? It matters because 37 of the 50 states have a Republican majority.
So, we are not there yet, and I am sure the "smart ones" in the Democratic Party are aware of the 12th Amendment too - and will do everything in their power to make sure there has been a definitive and valid decision made prior to January 6th, but if they do not - do not be surprised by another four years of President Trump. How can this happen? Well, if President Trump does not concede and enough of the states refuse to certify their electoral votes by January 6th, at that point it will go to the House of Representatives.
There are some who would argue this undermines the electoral process - but to them, we have to say that the 12th Amendment is PART OF the electoral process which is validly and constitutionally in place. We also need to remind ourselves, again, that we are not there yet. If enough states certify their ballots, it is over - and there will be a Biden presidency. If they do not - OR - enough submit conflicting or "dueling slates of electors" and neither candidate receives the required 270 electors, then on January 6th, it goes to the House.
Does this sound far-fetched? Well, the House electing the President HAS HAPPENED THREE BEFORE! Well, FOUR if you count President Ford (see below).
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson - the "author of the Declaration of Independence" was elected by the House, who almost went for Aaron Burr.
In 1825, because there was no decision by January 6th, the House was left the responsibility and John Quincy Adams, who had fewer votes in the popular election was elected by the House. 2020 is not quite the same, since in 1825 there were three candidates vying for the presidency and today there are only two serious contenders. Well, Jorgensen is out there and though she has very few votes, if the selection goes to the House - the "top three" are the choices mandated by the 12th Amendment - so she too would be in the running.
In 1877, Rutherford B. Hayes was elected by the House after his opponent, Samuel J. Tilden had won 50.97 of the popular vote.
In 1974, President Nixon was facing impeachment and Vice President Spiro Agnew having been forced from office a year earlier due to alleged bribery charges. President Nixon nominated then-Senator Gerald Ford to be vice president, both houses of Congress voted him in as vice president - which led to him being president when President Nixon resigned.
Again, we are not there yet, but if we do get to January 6th without a decision, it goes to the House, and with a 37 to 13 advantage there - President Trump will be re-elected.
The question being asked by Oprah Winfrey and being answered by a panel comprised solely of Americans of African descent (Black). From the point of view of this writer, programs like this are making things worse. If there was a show on the Fox News Channel with a panel comprised solely of white Americans and they were deciding what to do about the problems of the Black community - they would be enraged - and rightfully so! So why does Oprah & Co. think it is okay to do the reverse? Talk about racism!
Oprah asks "Where do we go from here?" and "What should our demands be?" The demands should be, and not just from her panel or "people of color" - but from ALL people from all walks of life - "race" after all, is a relatively novel concept in the history of mankind. Of all species, the physical differences beyond the color of mankind are insignificant. In a PBS presentation, it is asserted that the species of modern human beings "has not been around long enough or been isolated enough to evolve into subspecies or races" (Cheng, 2003). The presentation goes on to say that "we are among the most similar of all species" (Cheng, 2003). We need to stop focusing on the differences and put the emphasis on how much alike we are and learn to love each other as brothers and sisters, regardless of skin color and social upbringing.
This is not to minimize the injustices that have taken place, especially in the United States, which were based primarily on the color of someone's skin. Certainly there have been quite a few abuses and some have hung on to the mindset of by-gone generations. The point here is not to cast blame on people of varying colors - that is precisely OPPOSED to what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached! His "dream" for his children was that they "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" (King, 1963). The point is that mindset is truly of a "by-gone generation" and we all need to stop perpetuating it.
We have to ask Ms. Winfrey if she believes Dr. King died in vain? Is she not judging others by their skin color and not by their character? Every single American should be appalled by what happened to Mr. Floyd. The police officer who knelt on Floyd's neck has been arrested and charged for his ignorant, if not negligent behavior - and let us pray that justice prevails and due process passes down what is deserved. Ms. Winfrey, what more do you want? Every moral citizen of the United States wants to see injustices removed from society and the fact is - many have been!
Yes, there is still a way to go - but life for those who are culturally "African American" has changed dramatically in the last 50-60 years! We do not see segregated drinking fountains, or restaurants or places which cater to whites only or colored only. In 2020 you, Ms. Winfrey, can go just about anywhere you want - and that was not true in 1960.
What is the programming being put forth by the OWN network in recent days really doing besides causing more division and strife between white and black Americans? Again, as a society, we cannot tolerate what happened to Mr. Floyd. How about Justine Damond? A white woman shot down by a black cop, also in Minneapolis. Who has heard of her? Why haven't you heard of her? I'm sure both sides could come up with numerous examples - but the issue is not the police departments, per se, as it is a few "bad cops" who need to be removed from the force, and where appropriate, charged with crimes.
Who can justify the robbing, burning, looting, etc. of private businesses in the name of Mr. Floyd? How can this be justified? Why is the harming of other innocent souls, their businesses, or their livelihood ever be seen as appropriate?
According to Larry Elder, in the following video, about 4% of the police in America are problematic, which leaves us with 96% of cops who are "good cops." Why is there all this outrage on entire police departments? The focus should be on the removal of the 4% - not the mentality of dismantling entire police forces. If management is the problem for allowing the 4% to remain employed - then management needs to go too - but let us support the 96% of police officers who literally put their lives on the line day after day protecting us - all of us!
So, where do we go from here? I would ask Ms. Winfrey to stop being part of the problem in perpetuating the myth that "systemic racism" is rampant as if nothing has changed in the last 60 years!
The fact of the matter is the Black community in the United States, if viewed as a nation, would be the eighteenth wealthiest nation on the planet (Peterson, 2017). Peterson also points out the problem of relative poverty, stating "relative poverty matters" but is quick to point out that absolute wealth matters too. The problem with the post-modern thought or philosophy is a nearly total lack of gratitude (Peterson, 2017), not being able to appreciate how lucky we are to live in today's society - and not be living in a society of 400 years ago, or even 60 years ago!
In closing I ask, are there changes we still need to make? To which I will answer myself, YES! A society that does not continue to evolve and adapt to change is a dead society. Let us focus on the 4% and fix THAT - while at the same time supporting the 96% and express our gratitude for those who truly do put their lives on the line for each and every one of us on a daily basis.
References
Cheng, J. (2003). RACE - The power of an illusion. Public Broadcasting System,
I stumbled across the Hour of Power broadcast last week and heard the
Rev. Bobby Schuller (grandson of Robert H. Schuller, of the same Hour
of Power). My father loved watching Robert Schuller and always wanted to
go see the Crystal Cathedral, sadly - he never made it there. The
Crystal Cathedral is now Christ Cathedral - an actual cathedral of the
Catholic Church for the Diocese of Orange in California (Christ
Cathedral, 2020). Ironically, when Bobby Schuller moved from the Crystal
Cathedral to Shepherd's Grove, it is located in a former Catholic
church called St. Callistus (CBN, 2020).
But I
digress... I stumbled across Rev. Bobby Schuller's Easter sermon and was
struck by him making the distinction between social distancing and
physical distancing. The message is that we need to continue to be
socially close to each other - while in this time of the COVID-19
outbreak, we need to practice physical distancing to help stop the
spread of this virus.
Schuller Is Not Alone
Since hearing Schuller's sermon I did a
little research, and he is not the only one making this distinction. Dr.
Joe Kort made virtually the same claim stating "We have to stay
socially connected through this (COVID-19 pandemic)." He continues:
We
can stay in connection with each other on the phone, webcam, and many
other online formats. Now is a time to be intentional and interactive
and not to isolate. We are wired to be social and luckily can maintain
that with technology. (Kort, 2020).
Anderson
reports that even the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is changing its
terminology to physical distancing instead of social distancing
(Anderson, 2020). Continuing, "social distancing implies not
socializing; physical distance mans not being physically close."
In
another report it is stated that "social distancing is a misnomer."
This article continues, "While we must be physically distant, it is
crucial we maintain, or even increase, social contact with others during
this unprecedented time" (Greenaway, Saeri, & Cruwys, 2020).
Not Just For COVID-19
The concepts of frequent hand-washing and
physical distancing we have all been a party to for the past several
weeks are and have long been the recommendations to help stop the spread
of any virus or other infectious disease. Every year we encounter the
seasonal flu, which mutates from year to year. We have figured out how
to make vaccines for the flu, but since it mutates, each year we need a
different vaccine. Thus far there is no vaccine for COVID-19, but it is
expected we will see one later this year, or perhaps next year. The
point though is during flu season and presumably, now we may see a COVID
season, frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing should be and
should have been the norm. Keep in mind, thus far the most recent
seasonal flu (for which we have and widely distribute a vaccination) has
killed more in the United States (and the world) than COVID-19 has and
since it is a new virus there is no vaccine for it (Maragakis, 2020). So
again, good hygiene and physical distancing is something we should
constantly be practicing. Welcome to the new normal.
Well, I have been silent long enough in this forum! I have used the excuse of going back to school, which I did and am still doing so now - but I just had to break the silence and plan to continue more, perhaps not real frequent - but will post more here. Please feel free to join, follow, share, and add comments!
Did President Trump really say we should inject disinfectants like bleach or Lysol into our bodies?
Oh come ON people! IF you READ what he said IN CONTEXT he was NOT saying to use disinfectants like Lysol or bleach, he was referring to the use of UV light and IF something LIKE THAT could be injected LIKE a disinfectant. He goes on to say he would like that to be investigated, he would be very interested IF something LIKE that could be done. Have you ever heard of a simili?
Here is the full context of the statement in question:
"So I asked Bill a question some of you are thinking of if you're into that world, which I find to be pretty interesting. So, SUPPOSING WE HIT THE BODY WITH A TREMENDOUS, WHETHER IT'S ULTRAVIOLET OR JUST VERY POWERFUL LIGHT, and I think you said, that hasn't been checked but you're gonna test it. And then I said, SUPPOSING IT BROUGHT THE LIGHT INSIDE THE BODY, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting. And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do SOMETHING LIKE THAT by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be INTERESTING TO CHECK THAT. So you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see. BUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE LIGHT, THE WAY IT GOES IN ONE MINUTE, THAT'S PRETTY POWERFUL." (Emphasis added)
You see, the CONTEXT is about using LIGHT - not bleach or Lysol.
And it appears that Trump was right on the money on this one! Ever hear of the "Healight" developed by Cedars-Sinai? Like Trump, I find this interesting, I hope you do too:
(Original video has been deleted several times by YouTube - this is not the original, but a newscast on the same topic).
