By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
February 13, 2001
Yesterday Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, gave a remarkable speech that some will probably claim was a repudiation of President Bush's call for more civility in Washington, D.C. However, it didn't sound like that to me. He said:
"Today there is much talk about moderation," but there is an "overemphasis on civility.""Civility cannot be a governing principle of citizenship or leadership," he said, adding that "though the war in which we are engaged is cultural, not civil," one should not let principles be "cannibalized."
Perhaps the reason it didn't sound like a repudiation of President Bush's call for more civility in Washington was because of some of the e-mail I get which appears to be more like waging war than having a civil debate. As is often the case, I happened to get a particularly warlike e-mail from a reader who not only did not give his name, but sent the e-mail from a public library in Massachusetts, making even his e-mail untraceable.
Judge Thomas, who knows first hand the kind of war that is being waged against our culture, gave some excellent advice to those gathered to hear him. In the culture war, he advised, we need to remember the message Pope Paul II has delivered to people all over the world "Be not afraid." It is a message, Thomas said, the Pope has preached all over the world, in former Communist nations, in African nations torn by "marauding tribes and disease" and "to us, warning us about being trapped in a culture of death, even in our comfortable, luxurious homes."
Certainly the Ashcroft hearings and the tortured, defiant exit from the White House by the Clintons are signals to us that the culture war is not over just because George W. Bush is our new Commander-in-Chief. In fact, what we can expect is not more civility, the talk of "bi-partisanship" notwithstanding, but more vicious attacks on the truth from the extremists.
I think Judge Thomas was trying to tell us that we will see more viciousness, and when that happens, we need to understand that mere civility is not going to counteract it. The people attacking all too often know exactly what they are doing - and trying to have a civil, factual exchange of ideas isn't what they are interested in. Their first goal is to make you really angry, because anger short-circuits the brain and makes it easier for them to move in and finish you off. Their second goal, of course, is to instill fear.
For example, let's dissect Massachusetts angry e-mail to me yesterday. It apparently was prompted by my reference to "disheartened Republican voters" who didn't go to the polls in California and other Western States after Al Gore was declared the winner of the Electoral College vote during drive time, 4:50-6:00 P.M. in California. Several poll workers in the West told me that happened. Massachusetts wrote:
According to Mostert, "disheartened Republican voters" didn't go to the polls in California because of the projection that Gore won Florida.Unfortunately--but not untypical for Republicans/Reich-Whiners--Mostert provides no substantiation whatsoever for that assertion.
And, of course, she neglects to include two additional facts which are substantiated:
1. Gore won Florida by 20-30,000 votes, that beyond reasonable doubt fact established by non-partisan media from all across the political spectrum;
2. Bush, having lost both national and Florida popular votes, is ille- gitimate, and thus is not the legal resident of the not-so-White House.
And here's another fact you pseudo-patriots can verify for yourself:
The US Constitution expressly places the resolution of presidential election disputes in Congress--not the US Supreme court. Further, 3 USC governs the presidential electors process from state to Congress--not from state to US Supreme Court. Nor does the latter invite the US Supreme Court to intervene in, interfere with, interrupt, or abort elections, cote-counting, or that process.
That means: that Court, by simply accepting the _Bush v. Gore_ case, usurped the powers of Congress, thereby violating Constitutional separa- tion of powers. And that was done, of course, knowingly; thus the majority, in accepting the case, and in deciding it, violated their oaths to uphold Constitution and laws. (And I don't want to neglect to note that the majority, in doing all that, "changed the rules after the election"--which they themselves said is unconstitutional to do.)
It would be hard to find more misstatements of fact in so few words. Massachusetts, who has given us nothing but unsubstantiated statements wrapped in bile, ends his e-mail by calling for impeachment of the members of the US Supreme court - seven members - who concurred with the decision that the bizarre vote-counting in predominately Democrat precincts in Florida was a violation of the 14th Amendment. ALL precincts in the state needed to be counted by hand, using a uniform standard or the count in selected precincts needed to be halted.
Of course Gore did NOT win Florida by "20-30,000 votes." In fact, in spite of all the recounting, he never got a single vote majority, much less thousands of votes. It was obvious during the tortured recount and resulting flurry of lawsuits that if the Democrats could have only pulled ahead ONE TIME they would claim forever that they "rightfully" won the Florida vote. They were prepared for a media blitz proclaiming victory, even though the counting methods being used in the Democrat precincts were not being used in Republican precincts. Furthermore, the Gore camp was desperately trying to PREVENT the counting of absentee military ballots, since they favored George W. Bush.
The fact is, George W. Bush won the Electoral College vote, which is the only vote that actually counts under the U.S. Constitution, by four votes. In 1800 the Electoral College vote was a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes won the Electoral College vote by one vote, while losing the nationwide popular vote by 3%, compared to one-half of one percent fewer popular votes in the official count received by George W. Bush.
The fact is, with the voter fraud that has been uncovered by newspapers around the country, the early report of Al Gore as the winner, and persistent reports that in some states absentee ballots were not all counted because they would not change the State outcome, we will NEVER know how the majority of the registered voters would have voted. It appears, from the most recent polls, that a very clear majority now, as was reported in polls before the election, favor George W. Bush.
So far as impeaching the members of the U.S. Supreme Court who made the decision to halt the fiasco in Florida, that is simply absurd. However, as Justice Thomas talked about, it is not wise to simply dismiss such rantings in hopes a civil response will calm them down. It won't. In fact, we can expect people like Massachusetts, who probably are writing threatening letters to the U.S. Supreme Court and to George W. Bush, to become even more violent and irrational.
What they need to understand is what Clarence Thomas said. We are not afraid of them. We will take whatever action necessary under the law protect the system of government the Founding Fathers created for us.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
