"The Durham Report and History"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Durham Report and History”

May 30, 2023

 

“Who controls the past controls the future.

Who controls the present controls the past.”

                                                                                                                                George Orwell (1903-1950)

                                                                                                                                Nineteen-Eighty-Four, 1949

 

In his 1982 story of a small Irish village, Passing the Time in Ballymenone, American historian Henry Glassie (1941-) wrote: “History is not the past but a map of the past, drawn from a particular point of view…” All histories reflect the author. But good historians account for that, differentiating between actual events and their personal opinions. The Founding Fathers were conscious of history when they selected Washington as the capital of the new United States in 1790. It was a “federal enclave,” separate from both the commercial/industrial north and the agrarian south. It was not beholden to one party or one faction.

 

However, over time, as its bureaucracy increased and as public sector unions took sway, Washington changed; so that today in the District, according to the Pew Research Center, Democrat registrations, among federal government employees, outnumber Republican registrations two to one. While the leaders of Washington’s agencies reflect whichever party is in power, permanent federal government employees are, on balance, sympathetic to the Democrat Party. 

 

The purpose of the Durham Report was to shine light on nefarious attempts to affect the outcome of the 2016 election – to address the widely accepted view that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the Presidential election that year. It also offers an alternative (and more accurate) perspective on subsequent efforts to undermine Mr. Trump’s Presidency. The Report details how the nation’s premier investigatory and intelligence services, in cooperation with the Clinton campaign, falsely implicated Mr. Trump as having colluded with Vladimir Putin to sway the election.   

 

While unsurprising to those of us skeptical of accusations of Russia collusion on the part of the Trump campaign in 2016, findings in the Report should concern all Americans. The idea that a few senior officials in Washington’s intelligence services would try to influence the outcome of a Presidential election campaign should send shivers up the spines of anyone who believes in our Constitution and the democratic process. I recognize there are those who believe Donald Trump was and is so vile a person that any means to keep him from office were and are justifiable, but that line of thinking leads to totalitarianism. 

 

Like many at the time, I was skeptical that Mr. Putin would prefer the mercurial Mr. Trump, a man he did not know as a politician, to a woman he did know and with whom he had dealt. The accusation, on its face, seemed absurd. What we did not know, and what the Durham Report tells us, is the extent to which leaders in Washington’s intelligence bureaucracy would go to provide federal support for one Party’s candidate. 

 

Forty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously wrote in The Washington Post: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  But facts can be misconstrued, mislabeled, or falsified. “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth,” is a law of propaganda, something known to psychologists as an “illusion of truth.” The Durham Report did not include indictments, but I suspect Special Counsel John Durham was concerned first with preventing another illicit attempt to use government employees to affect an election, but also with how history would recall the 2016 election and its aftermath. The Country does not need to be divided any further than it already is.

 

In a recent article for the Manhattan Institute, on a different subject, Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufman wrote as to how facts can be “framed or contextualized” to increase political polarization. Compare, for example, mainstream media’s reporting on January 6 to their reports on Russian collusion. Both January 6 and the Russian collusion were undemocratic and violated the spirit of the Constitution, if not its actual principles. But one was performed in the open, for all to see. The other was done in secret, with falsified documents and lies to Congress. The January 6 riot was an illicit, but ridiculous unarmed attack on the Capital. It was not an insurrection, as the media likes to call it. The rioters were unarmed and there were no political or military leaders. The Capital police were armed, with one policeman shooting and killing an unarmed woman as she climbed through a window. The attack had no chance of succeeding. The best barometer we have to measure any shock to the nation is the stock market, an impartial assessor. On January 5^th, 2021, the Dow Jones Industrial Averages (DJIA) closed at 30,391.60. On January 6, they closed at 30,829.40, up 1.4%. On the 7^th, they rose again to 31,041.13. A week later they closed at 31,060.47.  In contrast, following the attacks on 9/11, markets were shuttered. When they re-opened six days later, the DJIA declined by 7.1%. On December 8, 1941, the Monday after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the DJIA closed down 3.5%. 

 

Yet prosecution of the January 6 participants proceeds. While participants in the Russian collusion are enriching themselves, giving speeches and selling books, more than a thousand January 6 rioters have been charged, with some languishing in jail without due process. The contrast is stark between Merrick Garland who weaponized the Justice Department and Special Counsel John Durham who chose not to indict those who had misused their power and position to pursue a false story. One abetted a polarized nation; the other helped soothe differences. What will history say?

 

The biggest scourge that faces us is not January 6 or even the Russian collusion hoax – it is wokeness, with its attack on free speech and its confiscation of the English language. It has polarized and bifurcated our nation. We need the healing that Mr. Durham offered, not the lies and the salt-in-the-wound that is the preference of Mr. Garland and minions like Adam Schiff and Liz Cheney. In Reason and Common Sense, George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Not knowing John Durham, I cannot be certain of his intent, but the consequence of his Report, as I see it, is an attempt to set the record straight as to exactly what happened and who truly colluded with Russia during the summer of 2016, and to prevent such iniquitous activities in the future. Durham did not seek retribution. He provided the nation with an honest rendering of the facts. Let history be the judge.

"Parents and Schools"

 Whether the current Administration is the most corrupt in the history of our nation, I leave to those better qualified to decide. But, as we know from the influence peddling of Hunter Biden and the recent revelations of Merrick Garland’s son-in-law’s business ties to the teaching of critical race theory, there is no question as to its corruption.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Parents and Schools”

October 16, 2021

 

“I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

                                                                                            Terry McAuliffe

                                                                                            Democrat gubernatorial candidate, Virgini

                                                                                            September 29, 2021, in debate with Glenn Youngkin

 

“Regardless of family background, students whose parents are involved in their

schooling are more likely to have higher grades and test scores, attend school

regularly, have better social skills, show improved behavior, and adapt well to school.”

                                                                                        National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education, 2006

 

Terry McAuliffe was correct in the sense that it would be impossible for a school to design individual syllabuses for each child. Nevertheless, the input of parents should be sought, not denied. As the NCPIE (quoted above) expressed, when parents do take an active interest in the education of their children they achieve higher grades, gain better social skills and more easily adapt to school.

 

It was once rare for any American of any political persuasion to deny the importance of parents in the education of their children. As educator and author Dorothy H. Cohen (1915-1979) once observed. “No school can work well for children if parents and teachers do not act in partnership on behalf of the children’s best interests.” Now, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s weaponization of the Justice Department has put that partnership at risk. In response to a letter to President Biden from the National School Boards Association, which likened parents’ protests to acts of domestic terror, Mr. Garland said he would use the Patriot Act against those parents who have “threatened” school boards for the teaching of critical race theory-type themes, adopting NEA New Business Item 39[1], cancelling history and tradition, distributing sexually explicit curricular materials, and allowing transgender bathrooms.

 

Violence against any person, including school board members, is a crime, but disallowing dissenting voices of parents is a violation of their First Amendment rights. As for the rights of public schools to teach what they choose, consider Justice Clarence Thomas’ 2011 dissent in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants: “The ‘freedom of speech’ as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors without going through the minors’ parents or guardians.” To arbitrarily ignore parents’ concerns is what one would expect of a totalitarian regime more interested in indoctrination than education, not from the world’s foremost and oldest constitutional republic. 

 

In America, education flourished when it emphasized the basic elements or reading, writing and arithmetic, and, as students progressed, when it encouraged skepticism, inquiry and empiricism. Unfortunately, public school education today de-emphasizes education in favor of equity, to achieve graduation rates that reflect the racial composition of the student body. Standardized tests have been eliminated. The Regent Exams in New York have been watered down over the years, and in 2019 a commission was established to potentially eliminate the exams as a requirement for high school graduation. In this past year, New York’s Mayor de Blasio ordered the elimination of the city’s gifted and talented programs. In Oregon, Governor Kate Brown signed a bill ending a requirement that high school students prove they are proficient in reading, writing and math before they are granted diplomas. 

 

This dumbing down of educational standards is being done in the name of social justice, as the claim is that standardized tests are unfair to racial minorities and people of color. The sad thing is that those are the very people who have benefitted by such programs. In a list of the top ten secondary schools around the world attended by Nobel recipients over the past one hundred and twenty years, five are in the United States, four are in France and one in England. Of the five in the United States, four are elite public high schools in New York City. Historically, these schools have accepted the brightest students, regardless of race or color. While the student bodies of these schools may not be representative of the population, they reflect a truism that progressives do not acknowledge – that while people are equal in rights and under the law, they are not and never will be equal in abilities or aspirations. If there are too few blacks admitted to these elite high schools that is the fault of their elementary and middle schools, not of the tests. To claim otherwise suggests innate racial differences, which I do not believe to be true, and neither do the parents of these children, which can be seen in their demand for more charter schools and vouchers.

 

Wealthy parents, which include most members of Congress and a substantial number of the Washington bureaucracy, do not have to engage in heated discussions with local school boards, as they have options. If they do not like a school’s curriculum, they can move to a different district or enter their child in a private school. Poorer parents, regardless of race and especially those in inner cities and in rural areas, do not have that option; so, if they see or hear something of which they disapprove, they can and they should express their opinions. It is their duty as a parent.

 

The decline of the nuclear family has adversely affected all children, as it pertains to education Aristotle wrote that the family is nature’s established association for the supply of mankind’s everyday wants. In 1995, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was asked what was the biggest change he had seen over his 40-year career. He responded: “The biggest change, in my judgment, is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world.” In the April 24, 2012 edition of The New York Times, William Bennett, former secretary of education, wrote: “The family is the linchpin of society, both economically and socially.”

 

Yet traditional family formations have been in decline for over half a century. According to PEW Research, 64% of all children today – those under age 18 – live in married two-parent households. In 1960 that number was 88%. According to the CDC, four out of every ten children today are born to unwed mothers. The statistics for black children are more devastating. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to unwed mothers. By 2018, according to the National Vital Statistics Report, 69% of black children were born out of wedlock. Because of the effects such births have on poverty and education, reasons for this decline should be investigated by a bi-partisan panel. One consequence, as it affects education, is that school boards, unions and teachers have accrued power at the expense of parents.

 

Schools should teach history and civics with honesty and without bias, while keeping historical actions taken and words written within the context of time and place. Like a nation, schools do not have to be perfect to be good. But they should not teach discriminatory policies, treat children as other than their biological selves, or alienate parents who only want what is best for their children. Morally and ethically, this is the right path to follow.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The NEA New Business Item states: “The NEA will provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or the 1619 project.”

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg - RIP"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swstotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

Ruth Bader Ginsburg – RIP

September 20, 2020

“She was the best of colleagues, as she is the best of friends. I wish her a hundred years.” 

Justice Antonin Scalia On the occasion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 10^th Anniversary on the D.C. Court of Appeals 1990

In his novel, The Way we Live Now, Anthony Trollope wrote about his main protagonist, Augustus Melmotte: “But there had grown upon the man during the last few months an arrogance, a self-confidence inspired in him by the worship of other men, which clouded his intellect, and robbed him of much of that power of calculation which undoubtedly he naturally possessed.” Americans, especially those on the far left, have a tendency to elevate heroes to elysian heights, while consigning opponents to eternal damnation. 

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a brilliant jurist, a pioneer in women’s rights and a person who put politics aside when it came time to choosing friends, as could be seen in her long friendship with Antonin Scalia, opera being a common interest. She fought for equality, fairness and justice. As a lawyer, she argued six cases before the Supreme Court and won five of them, before being appointed to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Carter in April 1980. She was worshipped by fans who called her “notorious” RBG. Two years ago, Betsy West and Julie Cohen produced a documentary on her life, “RBG.” At least six biographies have been written on her life. But we elevate people to iconic status at a risk. She, like all of us, was human.

 

Ms. Ginsburg was political. On July 10, 2016, in an interview with the New York Times, she said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what this country would be – with Donald Trump as our President.” Shortly before she died, she dictated a letter to her granddaughter Clara Spera, in which she said: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

 

There is no question that the Supreme Court does not (and cannot) rise above politics. Judges are nominated by politicians and confirmed by politicians. Nevertheless, lifetime appointments should reduce political interference and angst. In fact, Supreme Court Justices have, at times, turned opposite to what had been expected, two examples being Felix Frankfurter and Earl Warren. Nevertheless, what is important if we want this Republic to persist for another two hundred and thirty-three years is adhering to the basic functions of the three branches of government: A legislature that creates laws; an executive that carries out laws, and a court that ensures laws passed comply with the Constitution. 

 

We will mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a few days, with flags around the country at half-mast. Then politics will reenter the forum, with the President nominating a replacement. Democrats will invoke the memory of Merrick Garland, whose nomination by Barack Obama was blocked in 2016 by a Republican majority-held Senate. Had Democrats controlled the Senate four years ago, Mr. Garland would be Justice Garland today.

 

In this partisan world we inhabit, days of collegiality brought about by mourning for Justice Ginsburg will likely be short-lived. RBG’s death highlights the importance of this election – the difference between those who believe in a “living” Constitution that continuously updates reflecting cultural changes, and those who believe that decisions should be based on the written Constitution and precedent. Questions arise: Should the role of judges be to make or interpret the law? Should legislation be conducted from the bench? Seth Lipsky, in an editorial for the New York Sun, wrote of his admiration for Ms. Ginsburg, but he also recalled an exchange she had in Cairo eight years ago. The interviewer had mentioned that Egypt was writing a new constitution and wanted to know if Egypt should look to other constitutions. She replied: “I would not look at the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.” She preferred the more detailed bills of rights in the constitutions of Canada, South Africa and Europe. Mr. Lipsky added in his editorial: “Our Constitution rarely grants rights. It establishes negative rights, meaning prohibitions on government interfering with rights granted by God.” The distinction is important, in what it says about the role of government. A quote often mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson has relevance: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government to take away everything you have.”  

 

I had great respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as I do for the opinions of many of my friends on the Left but, just as I disagree with them, I disagreed with her judgments. Nevertheless, she left the world a better place. The real lesson to be learned from RBG is the relationship she had with her fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. They did not let political differences interfere with their personal friendship. Personal relations, even in disagreement, should be civil, collegial and respectful. As for whether President Trump should use this opportunity to nominate a replacement, why shouldn’t he? Surely, Democrats would. As Justice Ginsburg said in that same interview with the New York Times four years ago: “There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” But I pray rhetoric does not become elevated, and that the enduring friendship of two Justices, who represented different views at the Supreme Court, is remembered, as it hovers over a Senate weighing a decision.