We have recently returned from an east coast trip that created a series of cherished memories. However, one is particularly worthy of note here: our 8-year-old grandson was on his first adventure to New York, and he specifically asked to see the Statue of Liberty.
Given my New York roots and regular visits with family on the east coast while raising our own kids, before this latest trip we had been to the Statue quite a number of times. For those who haven’t made the journey, it is a ferry circuit during which visitors stop at both the Statue and Ellis Island – now a museum — through which approximately 12 million immigrants speaking at least 30 different languages were processed between 1892 and 1954.
I recall admiring the Statue in past visits, but being more interested in Ellis Island Museum’s exhibits and artifacts.
This time was different.
It wasn’t that Ellis Island had any less meaning – given the assault on our immigration heritage now being wrought by President Donald Trump and his minions, it perhaps had more – but I noticed that as our ferry approached the Statue, a hush fell over the crowd. Nobody – and there were a lot of people on this boat – said anything. I expected to be primarily focused on our grandson’s reactions, but was surprised to find that I was just as much taken up by my own. We all looked up with reverence, with wonder.
We have been to a lot of federal parks and monuments. While for me a couple stand out — one cannot visit Gettysburg National Military Park without feeling that you tread upon sacred ground, nor visit the Lincoln Memorial without viscerally experiencing the somber and ponderous weight one man bore upon his shoulders to preserve our union – each of these commemorate our past. The Statue of Liberty is about our future – the promise, the dream of America.
As I gazed upward I realized that Lady Liberty symbolizes the American dream not only for the “tired … poor … huddled masses … wretched refuse” from other shores that Emma Lazarus described in her 1883 poem, but for all of us, no matter how many generations of our forebears may have been here, who are “yearning to breathe free.”
Let us persevere so that she is never reduced to an ironic mockery. May God Bless America.
In this original post published early in June, I observed that while Republicans have for decades sought to figuratively claim our American flag, it has been during the Trump Era that MAGAs have aggressively attempted to make it a trademark of their vision of a culturally homogeneous America. In the event that you are not already aware of it, immediately below you will find a link to a YouTube presentation, “Reclaim the Flag,” in which its producers brought together a large number of members of the LBGTQ+ community and, after interviewing them regarding their views of the current state of America, provided each with a small American flag and asked for a response. The video consists of their impromptu reactions. One need not be a member of that particular community to identify with their responses – feelings of vulnerability, isolation, dispossession. They reflect despair – but also, heartening for me, hope. The video approaches 30 minutes, but I urge you to take the time to watch it.
I mentioned in the initial June post that I’ve never been inclined to fly the flag in front of our house or wear a flag pin, feeling patriotism resides in your heart, not on your chest. After listening to the last few clips of this production, I’m reconsidering.
I have previously indicated here that I am not sure whether anyone but me gets the benefit of comments to entries. I have received a comment relating to the above post that should be shared; the pertinent excerpt follows:
“[Y]ou slander Polk, without a doubt one of the most consequential presidents of our history. He had four goals:
Annex Texas
Claim the majority [of] the Oregon territory and California
Reduce tariffs
Establish an independent treasury.
He achieved all four in one term. An extremely consequential president.”
Although the entry’s main thrust addressed how presidents are rated in connection with our present day circumstances and not Mr. Polk specifically, and I noted therein that labeling a certain standard for determining presidential greatness that I disagreed with, the “Polk Approach,” “… probably unfairly denigrates Mr. Polk’s achievements,” it is only appropriate to publish this comment to expand Noise followers’ (and my own) knowledge about Mr. Polk. Since Mr. Polk died in 1849, he himself probably isn’t too concerned about the initial post, but the Noise hereby seeks to correct any misimpression it may have left. My Irish Catholic conscience is now clear (at least on this issue 😉 ).
When I developed an interest in American presidential history during my high school years, I learned that historians had different yardsticks for rating our past presidents. One measure ranked a given president according to how well he fulfilled his campaign promises. I recall that our eleventh president, James K. Polk, fared very well under this scheme because he apparently got done – I don’t recall what he did – whatever he had pledged to do during his campaign. I felt then and still do that such a standard – let’s call it the “Polk Approach,” although I acknowledge that so labeling it probably unfairly denigrates Mr. Polk’s achievements — obscured what I consider the true measure of a given president’s worth: the severity of the challenges s/he faced – whether or not s/he addressed them or even was aware of them during the campaign — and the success with which s/he handled them.
Yesterday, July 20, President Donald Trump concluded six months back in office, the one-eighth mark of his second term. During his first six months, we have seen a whirlwind of activity: the pardoning of insurrectionists whom he incited to attack our Capitol on January 6, 2021; the terrorizing and dehumanizing tactics he has employed against immigrants of color (including Latin citizens); the deployment of our active duty military on the streets of an American city; the wanton dismissal of federal employees and dismantling of our federal structure according to his partisan whims and aberrant policy views on such as foreign humanitarian aid, the environment, science, and education; the ramrodding of a law enriching the wealthy, depriving the impoverished, and increasing the federal debt; the emasculation of Congress (admittedly, he had some assistance from the cowards over there); the coopting of the federal courts; the browbeating of institutions of higher learning; and the intimidation of independent media sources. (I know; I beg your pardon for omitting some you would have added, but my typing fingers and your eyes only have so much strength.) It’s all flown by so fast that it has literally been impossible to keep track of it all, even if you haven’t – as I have – tried to maintain some emotional remove.
I ventured in a post a couple of months ago that Mr. Trump and his adherents recognized that at best, they only had the support of half of the American public, and understood that they needed to employ the Nazi model of the 1930s to quickly consolidate their control of our country if they were going to be able to reshape it to their vision. They began immediately, have moved with alacrity, and proceeded ruthlessly. They have achieved more of their mission more quickly than even I imagined they could – and we both know that’s saying a lot.
So, what’s Mr. Trump’s current grade? Well … it depends on the standard you prefer.
If you take my preferred method for assessing president’s performance — the severity of the challenges s/he faces, and the success with which s/he resolves them – it would be difficult for Mr. Trump to fare well, since his and his acolytes’ actions are the severe challenge we face.
By that standard, he gets an F.
On the other hand, given the President’s clearly expressed intent during his campaign to transition the United States from the democracy we have known for the last quarter of a millennium to a white, Christian, straight, oligarchic American Apartheid, he’s done extraordinarily well.
The title of this post is drawn from a 1986 book of the same name by David Stockman, most of which I’ve reread during the months since President Donald Trump began pushing the passage of his now-enacted “Big Beautiful Bill” (sometimes referred to as the “BBB”). For those with shorter memories, Mr. Stockman was the Reagan Administration’s first Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and probably the most responsible Executive Branch official, aside from President Ronald Reagan himself, for Americans’ initial plunge into our current escalating deficit-financed maelstrom. The tag line to Mr. Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics was, “Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.” I expect to refer to Mr. Stockman’s book in future posts; although the federal budget numbers and the ratio of budget deficit to GNP with which he was dealing over 40 years ago are incredibly small compared to those we now face, his book is a useful primer on the innards of the federal budget (with one exception: Medicare is now a much larger percentage of federal spending than it was in the early ‘80s). In 1981, the newly-elected Reagan Administration got its tax cut – those with the lowest incomes received a 14% rate reduction, those with the highest incomes as much as a 28% rate reduction — in large part because Mr. Reagan put all of his political weight (at its zenith, given his then-recent survival of an assassination attempt) behind the cut, since he believed, based upon his years in the movie industry, that the tax rates existing when he took office were an impediment to productivity.
Interestingly, in his initial chapters Mr. Stockman described how intense a political struggle it was to get the tax cut through Congress. Members of Congress of both parties initially opposed the drastic revenue reduction; they didn’t believe (as it turned out, obviously correctly) the claims of some Reagan Administration economists that the tax cuts would “pay for themselves” through increased economic growth. Mr. Stockman related that he himself never believed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves; his conception of the “Reagan Revolution” included tax cuts and a corresponding reduction in federal spending. His mistake, as he ruefully acknowledged in the book’s concluding chapters, was that he didn’t realize until too late in the process that members of Congress didn’t have the political stomach for spending cuts, so Mr. Stockman’s envisioned complete overhaul of the New Deal federal funding framework was left to drown in red ink. (Even Mr. Reagan, despite his rhetoric, was never as committed to spending cuts as he was to tax cuts.) It was … the triumph of politics.
Let’s move to the BBB. (I have it on highly credible authority that Brazilians following American political affairs were confusing the bill with an apparently-oft-performed Brazilian surgical procedure, the “Brazilian Butt Lift,” commonly referred to as, the “BBL.” Perhaps they think Americans will apply whatever tax relief they receive from the law to the adjustment of our … er … booties. 😉 ) All who care are already aware of the law’s primary components; it is generally undisputed that the law will increase our burgeoning federal debt by trillions due to its extension of Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which disproportionately favor the well-to-do, while at the same time it cuts about 1 trillion dollars in Medicaid and other food and health care benefits for millions of impoverished. There are certainly circumstances that warrant affirmatively increasing our deficit spending – COVID a recent example – but we are not currently facing such a challenge. (To be fair, until we have the opportunity to right-size our taxing scheme – perhaps, I say Pollyannishly, under our next president — I would have favored extending the Trump tax rates for the first $100,000 of household income, which as far as I can determine through clumsy internet searching, would completely cover the majority of American households but affect less than 20% of overall U.S. income tax revenue.) The law is cruel and stupid. It is clear that a substantial majority of Congressional legislators knows it. Many Medicaid recipients projected to be adversely affected voted for Mr. Trump. The increasing deficits will seemingly ultimately result in higher U.S. treasury interest rates that impede our real estate sector and overall economy and perhaps hasten the need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits beloved by seniors, the majority of whom voted for Mr. Trump in 2024. Any such accelerated permanent reduction in these benefits could in retrospect make many voters’ extended tax breaks a painfully poor exchange.
The BBB’s passage was, as in 1981, the triumph of politics; what I find intriguing is the shift in political dynamic over the last 40+ years.
In 1981, the Reagan Administration couldn’t get its spending cuts through Congress because legislators wouldn’t risk invoking the wrath of their constituents by depriving them of cherished programs. This month, the Trump Administration was able to obtain passage of its welfare cuts – although they will adversely affect a significant segment of Mr. Trump’s 2024 voters – because Congressional Republicans feared invoking the wrath of Mr. Trump. Put another way: their constituents now follow and accept what Mr. Trump wants – i.e., tells them what is good, what is in their interest, whom they should vote for, whom they should not vote for – without critical assessment. In 1981, Reagan voters supported the President, but members of Congress understood that these citizens would still independently determine whether a law was in their best interest; in 2025, members of Congress have come to understand that a significant segment, perhaps a significant majority, of Trump voters have outsourced their thinking to Mr. Trump and alt-right media. It is a stunning demonstration of the power of decades of propaganda. Arguably the most insightful assessment of the Republican – now, very largely MAGA – base was a comment reportedly made by former Republican Senate Majority Leader U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell in reassuring his Republican Senate colleagues concerned that Medicaid cuts would outrage their supporters: “They’ll get over it.”
They will. By the time the BBB’s provisions adversely impact the MAGA base, they will be convinced by alt-right media either that the losses they are feeling are caused by something former President Barack Obama did in 2010, or they’ll be distracted by some provocative fable about immigrants. At the time this is typed, I understand that many MAGAs are incensed at the Trump Administration for declaring that it has no client list of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier child sex trafficker, after being told for years in their media silo that the government was staging a cover-up to protect Epstein’s powerful (whom they presumably believe to be left-wing) clients. Although in recent days I’ve developed a better understanding why MAGALand is so obsessed with the Epstein case, I still consider it ironic that while MAGAs bellow about Epstein – a matter which, no matter how evil the truth, has absolutely no bearing on their wellbeing – and revel in the Administration’s implied if not explicit promotion of their “freedom” to disdain vaccines and fluoride, they utter not a murmur of protest about the BBB’s Medicaid cuts that will hinder or preclude their access to health care — including that they’ll need to treat the diseases and cavities inevitably resulting from the exercise of their “freedom.”
As legendary CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite used to say: That’s the way it is.
As all are aware, tomorrow we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, the birthdate of our nation. The scope of what the Founding Fathers envisioned and achieved in terms of principle and undertaking cannot be overstated; keep in mind that although on that day the leading members of what had theretofore been British colonies declared they were independent, such pronouncement was the beginning, not the end, of their struggle; when British King George III heard of it, he saw it simply as an act of rebellion (which from his perspective, it was) and I am confident that he fully expected to squash the movement as past English Kings and other rulers of great empires had crushed thousands of other seemingly-similar uprisings that followed similar declarations throughout the ages.
When one goes back and looks at the document, it is longer and more legalistic than one might suspect from the few touchtone phrases that have resonated through our almost 250 years. Its signatories were men of education, means, and standing; they were not a bunch of wild-eyed crazies; they understood that they were all going to be hanged and their assets forfeited if they lost. They were accordingly moved not only to recite the principles upon which they were founding a new nation and government, but to set forth what was in effect a bill of particulars – in effect, an indictment – listing more than twenty reasons why they felt it necessary to take the drastic step to renounce the sovereignty of a King.
I would suggest that either over the weekend or soon thereafter, it would be worthwhile to read the entire Declaration of Independence. In light of our political situation, I have the temerity to quote here a few passages, a couple known to every school child, several perhaps not as frequently cited:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness …
…
The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
…
He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither …
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
…
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
…
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us …
…
We, therefore … solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES …
[W]e mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
You can, as Hall of Fame New York Yankee Manager Casey Stengel used to say, look it up.
We certainly don’t need a new Declaration or a new nation; we can’t improve on what they did almost 250 years ago. We do need a broader and better collective memory and understanding of the types of monarchical behaviors that our Founding Fathers felt warranted repudiation at the risk of their lives and their fortunes.
Happy Holiday. When not reading or pondering the Declaration 😉 , may you have the opportunity to enjoy the company of family and friends this weekend. Watch our flag wave with pride.
It might appear from your side of the screen that I have contributed little to these pages in recent months, but not from this side. My document store is cluttered with any number of posts begun but abandoned. My reticence has arisen from the realization that my antipathy for Mr. Trump’s behavior has so colored my perspective on our political dynamic that figuratively standing back a bit to attempt to maintain a broader perspective has been the appropriate approach for me. I literally fast forward by his comments and those of his spokespeople whenever they come up on TV. I don’t believe a word they have to say.
To what do I attribute my deep emotions regarding the President’s actions? It is not his policy choices. Make no mistake: I consider Mr. Trump’s and his MAGA Administration’s approaches on taxes, tariffs, Medicaid, the budget deficit and the federal debt, the environment, science, education, NATO, Ukraine/Russia specifically, immigration — and probably ten other issues we could name if we took a minute — to be substantively idiotic. But perhaps because of my legal training, I don’t take substantive differences to heart, so Mr. Trump’s substantive positions, as sad and counterproductive to our nation’s long-term wellbeing as they are, warrant vigorous debate but don’t strike a visceral cord within me.
What I find distressing is that Mr. Trump’s abhorrent past actions are seemingly fading from the collective American consciousness – like they never happened. He’s lied them away.
They haven’t faded for me.
I trace my visceral feelings about his behaviors to these instances:
His traitorous behavior. He lied, and continues to deny, his loss in the 2020 presidential election. With millions of dollars at his disposal, he lost about 60 lawsuits in swing states challenging former President Joe Biden’s victory. That election was unquestionably close; but to use a trite sports analogy, during the World Series they have about six cameras covering first base from every angle. If the 2020 election is imagined as Mr. Trump running down the first base line, all six cameras would have shown that the ball hit the first baseman’s glove just before Mr. Trump’s foot hit the bag. He was out. It was close, buthe was out. His unwillingness to admit it to this day has groundlessly and execrably undermined the Americans’ confidence in our voting processes, the foundation of our system of government. The fact that anybody with a lick of sense should have been able to see through his lies – and millions haven’t – doesn’t excuse his behavior.
His incitement of an insurrection. You saw his speech on January 6, 2021. You saw the result. Calling it a lovefest doesn’t make it one. The attack on the Capitol was an insurrection – an attempted coup – which came within a hair’s breadth of succeeding. Mr. Trump should be in jail, not in the White House. Ditto the comment above regarding anybody with a lick of sense.
His dictatorial behavior. Some of our most renowned presidents have exercised broad presidential power, some skating to or over the limits of presidential power drawn in the Constitution. That said, as far as I’m aware, of our presidents only Mr. Trump – save perhaps President Abraham Lincoln, who had ample reason to call out southern secessionists – has referred to other Americans as “Enemies of the People” – a phrase used by Nazi Propagandist Joseph Goebbels against the Jews, Russian Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin during his Great Purge, and Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong during his Cultural Revolution.
His demonization of immigrants – at least immigrants of color. It obviously started with his 2015 trip down the escalator, calling Latin Americans “murders and rapists,” continued throughout his first term, further continued during the 2024 campaign with his reference to them as “vermin” – an epithet Adolf Hitler used about those he considered undesirable – and now with his Administration’s indiscriminate, terrorizing deportation activities. Undocumented immigrants are indeed criminals – they have entered the country in violation of our immigration laws, no matter how law abiding they’ve been since crossing our border — and what we do about them is a policy issue. But dehumanizing them for doing what anyone with courage should be willing to do if necessary to ensure a better life for his/her family — in practical terms what the forebears of every American citizen save Native Americans and those brought here in chains did do — is a malign act.
His bullying, self-dealing, and dividing Americans – in some cases, dividing families — for his own political gain. His actions in these regards are so well settled that, as lawyers sometimes say, they need no citation.
You could add others; I have limited my list to actions for which there is no reasonable doubt.
All that said, I have come to view Mr. Trump as a personal spiritual as well as temporal challenge. Throughout this note, I’ve referred to my antipathy for Mr. Trump’s actions. The very word, “antipathy,” is obviously a softer, ten-cent synonym for more provocative alternatives. In my faith, and I suspect in many faiths, we are taught that one can “hate the sin, not the sinner”; every day, millions of Christians ask the Almighty to “forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” — which one could argue amounts to those of less forgiving nature rotely giving a merciful God license to judge them more harshly than He (excuse the male pronoun for a genderless being) otherwise might. I don’t believe that I can wish ill upon another. Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Catholic, has said that she prays for Mr. Trump; he has mocked her for it. (I must sheepishly admit that Ms. Pelosi has greater faith than I do; although all things are possible with God, unless we can get Mr. Trump on a horse on the road to Damascus, I see little prospect that he will change his ways. 😉 ) I can’t claim to have said many prayers for the President, but I am focusing my antipathy on his behaviors.
For the sake of my soul, as I fast forward by his lies, rants and inanities, I hope I’m succeeding.
We’ll soon get back to regular programming. Stay well. 🙂
As protests against the Trump Administration’s immigration tactics spread across the country, several impressions prompted this postscript:
First, as all are aware, Mr. Trump has dispatched 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to the protest. This has particularly resonated with me. As I’ve previously mentioned in these pages, my father was a Marine, a decorated veteran of Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. If you are a child of a Marine, you are raised in the lore of the Corps, whether or not you enter the military. I probably knew the Corps’ hymn by heart before I entered kindergarten. It recounts in part:
“From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli; we fight our country’s battles in the air, on land, and sea; first to fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean; we are proud to claim the title of United States Marine. … [Y]ou will find us always on the job — The United States Marines. Here’s health to you and to our Corps which we are proud to serve; in many a strife we’ve fought for life and never lost our nerve. If the Army and the Navy ever look on Heaven’s scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines.” [Emphasis Added]
Even Marines acknowledge that the term, “arrogant Marine,” is redundant 😉 . It is their creed, in their viscera, that they go first; that they do what has to be done; that they clear the way for the lesser to follow. They take pride in it; they relish it. Putting aside the overall storyline of the movie, A Few Good Men, one of the declarations by Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Nathan Jessup is absolutely accurate: to protect our democracy against our nation’s enemies, and whether we like to admit it or not, we want them on that wall; we need them on that wall.
Perhaps it is because of my background that I find the deployment of Marines to Los Angeles so alarming. They are trained to kill; they have to be. Mr. Trump has knowingly placed the equivalent of the sharpest of knives between ICE agents and demonstrators who detest each other. Hopefully, the Marine commander in Los Angeles has a firm grasp of how his battalion should – and should not – engage with their fellow citizens. You simply don’t tell a Marine, “If they spit, you hit.” Our President either doesn’t understand that, or doesn’t care.
Next, I understand that a picture of a masked protestor in Los Angeles waving a Mexican flag atop a burned-out vehicle is being prominently and repeatedly broadcast in alt-right media. I myself have seen plenty of video in the media outlets we follow of Los Angeles protestors waving flags of foreign nations. They should stop. Even I find it jarring. Although American life appropriately embraces the cultural influences of many nations – St. Patrick’s Day Parades, spaghetti, the Polka, egg rolls, Cinco de Mayo, and German chocolate cake among them – demonstrators are presumably relying on and seeking to maintain civil rights afforded them in the United States of America under The Constitution of the United States of America, not those provided under the auspices of any other country. Those moved to hoist a flag as part of their expression should be waving the American flag – perhaps upside down as a sign of the challenge that the American way of life currently faces – but not the standards and symbols of other nations.
Yet next, it has been my privilege for the past several years to engage in a volunteer effort that has brought me into contact with immigrants from across the world. The activity is one that would only be undertaken by those from other countries who want to assimilate into American life. Participation, even in the early months of the Trump Administration, remained steady. It has now dwindled dramatically. While it is possible that the coming of summer could be having an effect on participation, one might well surmise that the Trump Administration’s activities have created the chill it desires. Some say it can’t happen here, won’t happen here. I think it is happening here.
Finally, as I indicated in the previously-published iteration of this note, I will not be able to attend the NO KINGS rally occurring in Madison (one of many across the country) this Saturday. That said, if I could give one piece of counsel to every participant of every rally, it would be this: Stay peaceful. Don’t be baited. The Trump Administration wants conflict. I would submit that every rally participant needs to anticipate that there could well be MAGA “counter-protestors” at the rally attempting to incite a conflict which would provide the Trump Administration with a justification to further extend its deployment of military forces throughout the nation.
To all those who plan to attend a NO KINGS rally on Flag Day: wave and display the Stars and Stripes proudly – but be careful out there.
And to the dads who read these notes: Happy Father’s Day. 🙂
As all are aware, this Saturday, June 14, is Flag Day. Let’s start with the law.
Section 8 of Chapter 4 of the United States Code provides, in part, as follows:
“No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. …
(b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as … merchandise. …
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. …
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. …
(i) The flag … should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. …
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart. … [Emphasis Added]”
Notwithstanding these statutory admonitions, the now-omnipresent “AI Overview” stated in my Google results: “… 4 U.S.C. § 8 … outlines the customs and practices regarding the display and use of the American flag. While the law itself doesn’t carry the force of law in terms of criminal penalties for not following the guidelines, it is considered a code of etiquette and good practice.”
I have sympathy for those who employ the flag in ways that arguably breach the statutory bounds of etiquette when such uses are intended to call attention to an injustice that the wielders sincerely – and rationally — believe needs correcting. I would offer that these actions, whether or not one agrees with them, are made in the exercise of one of the rights that the flag stands for: the freedom of expression. Although I’m a bit aesthetically offended when I see someone wearing a flag shirt vulnerable to an errant mustard drip, such can be dismissed as innocent exuberance, particularly around Memorial and Flag Days and the Fourth of July. That said, I consider those who flaunt the flag while sowing hatred and discord among our people to be defiling it. How badly is our flag desecrated when it is prominently displayed in the lapel of a politician engaging in self-aggrandizement, spewing self-serving lies, and/or inciting discord?
A larger concern: At this point, when I see our flag flying in front of a house, or see a fellow citizen wearing or using flag-themed apparel or paraphernalia, my visceral reaction is: that’s a Trump supporter. This is obviously an over-generalization, but I would suggest that my inclination is more often accurate than not. Republicans have been increasingly claiming the flag as their own as far back as President Richard Nixon. President George W. Bush made the flag lapel pin a political de rigueur badge of patriotism as he prosecuted his grotesquely ill-advised Middle East invasions. (President Ronald Reagan, whom many Americans of a couple of generations might consider to most closely personify American patriotism, somehow managed to lead the country for eight years without wearing a flag lapel pin.) However, such usurpation has reached its zenith in the era of President Donald Trump. MAGAs have attempted to make it a trademark of a culturally homogeneous America, insinuating that whoever ostentatiously — I would suggest promiscuously — displays it is a “truer” American. Now they blend it with other symbols you see at MAGA rallies: the flags with Mr. Trump’s picture emblazoned upon them; the MAGA hats; the Confederate flag; the Swastika.
The reason for posting this note so far before Flag Day is to make you aware, if you are not already, of the “NO KINGS” protests across the nation being undertaken by Indivisible and like organizations on June 14, as a counterpoint to the military/birthday parade being staged at Mr. Trump’s instance on the same day in Washington, D.C. These activist groups seek to shift the public’s attention from the military/birthday parade to spotlight unlawful Trump Administration actions.
(A Military/Birthday Parade, you ask? What does that mean? Well, Mr. Trump turns 79 on June 14. Monica Crowley, a one-time aide to Mr. Nixon, now apparently the State Department’s chief of protocol, reportedly recently stated: “June 14 is a special day. Of course, it’s the president’s birthday, so I’m sure the crowd will break out into a ‘Happy Birthday.’ Providential. And it’s also Flag Day … Meant to be. Hand of God, for sure.”)
Providential. Meant to be. Hand of God. I know, I know: all she left out was, “Divine Right.” A link to a website describing the seemingly-aptly named “NO KINGS” gatherings is immediately below. For those reading these posts who live outside the Madison, WI, area, the number of marches across the country listed on the website is fairly impressive. Full disclosure: although I have taken part in a number of protest gatherings and marches since Mr. Trump took office, I won’t be able to personally engage in this one. Since I can’t attend, at least I can mark the demonstrations here. That said, someone very, very close to me 😉 intends to participate in the Madison march along with several associates.
I’ve never been inclined to fly the flag in front of our house or wear a flag pin. As the federal statute suggests, I believe that patriotism resides in your heart, not on your chest. I fear that many of Mr. Trump’s supporters fail to grasp that that our flag doesn’t just belong to them. To them I say: It’s mine, too. Give it here.
As all who care are aware, over the last couple of days federal agents of several types have clashed in Los Angeles with demonstrators protesting against the Administration’s immigration enforcement activities. The New York Times has reported that these agents have used “flash-bang grenades” against protestors, and that the Trump administration’s top law enforcement official in Southern California has declared that the protests are “out of control.” President Donald Trump has ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to the city to quell the protests. They are expected to arrive today.
What I find at once the most predictable and disquieting about the current furor:
Mr. Trump has based his directive under a federal law which authorizes the President to deploy the National Guard if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” [Emphasis Added]
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has described demonstrations at Los Angeles’ federal building on social media as, “An insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States,” and later as “a violent insurrection.” [Emphasis Added]
I understand that Mr. Trump has not claimed authority for his National Guard directive under what is technically considered “The Insurrection Act,” a law which the Brennan Center for Justice states “authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations,” but the section Mr. Trump is relying upon appears in the same Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Laws that contains the Insurrection Act.
Although I am completely confident that not all of the demonstrators are Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and that a number of those apprehended in the Administration raids — even if they have committed no other criminal acts — are indeed here illegally, I would venture that the Administration is welcoming the pretext to act more aggressively against those who oppose its vision for America.
In recent weeks, given the impending passage of Mr. Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” due to the craven acquiescence of MAGA Congressional representatives, I’ve been focusing on the federal deficit and debt, how we got to where we are over the last 40+ years, and commentaries regarding what steps we might be taking to avert a looming financial meltdown if we had rational federal executives and courageous legislators.
McCoy's Noise 