Trump: “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”  Something serious to consider here. How long ago was it that Kennedy was killed in office, that Robert was killed attempting to be elected and Reagan was shot on duty? Forget about the violence the president is indirectly encouraging to have applied or committed upon the life and body of the whistleblower. Start thinking about the ‘dogs of war’ that maybe be unleashed against the president himself. Do not his words alone open those doors to people feeling like “well, if he feels that way about applying violent acts towards his enemies, is it not fair to apply the same actions against him?”

The U.S. has an entire, ornate and expensive system of jurisprudence set up for this very kind of thing; To keep violence from being used as the solution to any disagreement, and to make sure that the only violence applied to rule-breakers of any kind is applied by the state, after due process and a hell of a lot of appeals and eyes looking at the case and result. A whistleblower, officially reporting his concerns to an official and secretive government authority, is a long way from meeting any standard for measuring treasonous activity or for being a “spy.” Because the whistleblower fears for the country based on the president’s actions do not measure up to any of that. The mentioning of basically executing the whistleblower by the president may lead to violence, but (I believe) that violence, once unleashed, might very well be against the president himself. History is rampant with this kind of knee jerk violent reaction towards leaders who have assumed dictatorial powers. Over time, those individuals do not do well, in regard to remaining alive on the planet.

A president of the United States once again must stand for impeachment, as the House of Representatives in Congress formally opens its investigations. That body has a majority of democrats while the Senate, that must confirm the impeachment if that is what the House finally concludes, is made up of a majority of Republicans who are not likely to vote against a sitting Republican president, no matter what he might be convicted of. Andrew Johnson was impeached but that impeachment failed. The same is true for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. What is the future to portend, when, once again, fevered and highly emotional actions are taken by one party toward the leader of another, and prior to formal investigations and recriminations violence is already placed up on the table, a table to soon become a field…a field of combat?

One very important item must be considered, as the political scene becomes ever more filled with high emotion potentially having the unlikely but now partially probable likelihood of leading to violence at the highest levels of government. That one thing is generally referred to as the ‘nuclear codes.’ When, and hopefully soon, will both sides of the political spectrum today, decide it is in everyone’s best interest, for survival itself, if the launching of any of the largest and most effective nuclear explosive weapons ever made, will no longer be in the hands of one man or woman. The vitriol of who is going to lead (otherwise known as politics), has become so strong that this single item must rise to the very top of every leader’s and the public’s attention. That is, and only is, if the current control of that ‘nuclear codes’ use can be pried from the fingers of the current leader who holds it, and the answer to that question cannot be given here.

The power to end civilization as we know it, or even the existence of mankind on planet earth, should not, and cannot, be vested in one human being. Especially with the advancing age of political leadership (Trump is 73, and will be 74 next June; Biden is 76, and will be 77 in November; Bernie is 78, and will be 79 next September; Elizabeth Warren is 70 and will be 71 soon) the factors, especially the mental factors, all of us know to be there with advanced age, have to be considered and responded to. The Soviet Union is gone. The Russia of today has a defense budget less than 10% of the U.S. China has no nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers hauling nuclear weapons around. No rapid response to a nuclear threat is necessary, because that kind of nuclear threat is not there, and certainly no response from a person suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s or any other aging mental disorder is called for.

We must consider the living part of living and dying in America, and the controls we can establish to assure that we all reach our old ages with some kind of health and bliss without constantly living in fear. Fear from within as well as without.

~ James Strauss



Sign up for Updates