Remember, the Reason for Kneeling During the National Anthem is to Call Attention to a Lack of Equality

In the United States over the weekend, we spent much of the time debating the merits of kneeling for the National Anthem.  Spurred by a tweet by the President, the debate focused on whether athletes should be permitted to kneel during the National Anthem as a form of protest.  Why President Trump decided to make this the time to disparage athletes who choose to express themselves by kneeling is something of a mystery, since Colin Kaepernick first kneeled for the National Anthem over a year ago and this is the third week of the NFL season. 

Nonetheless, his use of social media once again sparked both outrage and support from the American public.  There was also a large group of people who resented having the public attention focused in such a way, citing what they considered real problems, such as the devastation to Puerto Rico by Hurricane Maria or the increasing tensions between the United States and North Korea.

But the problem both with the tone of the debate this weekend, as well as those who bemoaned that we were having this debate at all, is that attention was focused on the whether athletes should be permitted to kneel during the National Anthem, and not on why they were choosing to do so.

Let's face it.  It's not as if Colin Kaepernick woke up one day and thought about what behavior he could do that would anger the most football fans.  Kaepernick took a knee to protest.  In particular, he protested racial inequality in this country; an inequality that was highlighted by the spread of online videos showing police officers engaging in what many thought was unnecessarily violent behavior against African Americans.

This is a debate that makes many white Americans uncomfortable.  It forces Americans to consider that they have been receiving special treatment due to nothing more than the reason that they were born white.  This has been labeled as "white privilege."  And to many Americans, they don't want to think of themselves as privileged.  A good number are hard working, and view their position in life as a result of that hard work and the choice to do things "the right way."

But as I pointed out to my daughter last night, white privilege is alive and well in this country.  Just consider Walmart's state of the art security system: the elderly man at the exit choosing which customers to ask to see their receipt.  Plenty of times, I choose not to bag my purchases at Walmart, mostly because they are big items like cases of water or big bags of dog food.  Still, the fact that I choose not to bag my items should be seen as a security threat.  Yet, I have only once been stopped by the kindly elderly gentleman to see my receipt.  And that was because he stopped an African American family in front of me, who raised a ruckus over why he wasn't stopping me.  The fact is, whenever I have seen that man stopping a customer, it has always been a person of color.

Added to that discomfort is that fact that the National Anthem and the flag serve as powerful symbols of patriotism.  To disrespect the flag is to disrespect the soldiers who died selflessly protecting this nation.

That only raises the question, however, as to why our soldiers have gone to war and died protecting this nation.  Are we simply venerating national symbols because they happen to remind us of the geographic location in which we live?  Or is patriotism something more?

During debates like this, I like to think of my grandfather, who served in the First Army with General Patton, and who fought in the Battle of the Bulge.  Sure, he had a lot of stories about how he cut off Hitler's ear which were entertaining to me as a young boy.  But, as the long-time commander of the local American Legion post, who made speeches at the annual Memorial Day parade, he taught me a lot about patriotism and love for the United States.

When I think of patriotism, I return to a phrase that he repeated often in those speeches.  We took the time to march on Memorial Day because he were honoring those who gave their lives so that we may walk free.  The emphasis I took away was the last part of his phrase, that we may walk free.

What it comes down to is that I am immensely proud to be an American because of our freedom, because of our emphasis on the rule of law; in short because of the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Chief among the self-evident truths our founding fathers proclaimed was that all men are created equal.

To me, therefore, the debate over taking a knee during the National Anthem is important because it calls attention to those principles that make our nation great.  We believe in the right of the people to engage in peaceful protest and to call attention to those issues which are important to them.  In this case, the issue is inequality.  To dismiss the reason behind the protests, no matter how uncomfortable we may feel both over the form of the protest, fails to pay respect to the principles which the United States is supposed to embody.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.

President Trump May Have Done DACA Recipients a Favor

It may not look like it now, but by announcing an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, president Trump may actually have done its recipients a favor. 

DACA was a popular program, with many people denouncing the president for announcing his intentions to end it. DACA allowed young people, who were not born in the United States but brought here illegally by their parents, to come out of the shadows and become productive members of society without fear of deportation. 

But relying on the continuation of DACA was bad policy. 

First, DACA was of questionable constitutionality at best. DACA was not created or even authorized by legislation. Instead, President Obama took a small piece of executive authority meant to address situations where the application of immigration law was harsh on an ad hoc basis, and turned it into a huge program. DACA is based on presidential authority to grant deferred action. This is nothing more than a promise not to seek the removal of a person who is otherwise in violation of immigration law. It is not directly authorized by Congress. Rather, it stems from the theory that the person who is enforcing the law has the discretion to choose not to come down with the full force of the law when there is a violation. Think of a police officer who witnesses a minor crime, but chooses not to arrest a person. 

The problem is that by taking this small piece of executive discretion and creating a full program out of it, affecting hundreds of thousands of people, President Obama infringed on the role of the legislative branch. That is, he essentially created law without Congress passing legislation. This can be seen as a violation of separation of powers. 

Several states saw it that way. Citing the extra expenditures the states believed they were incurring on people who were present in the country illegally, these states threatened to sue the federal government to end DACA. These states had been successful in shutting down a similar program that granted deferred action to foreign born parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents by filing suit in the Fifth Circuit. If the states had filed a lawsuit over DACA, there was a real danger that the program could have been ended by the courts and declared unconstitutional. 

Second, DACA was a very weak solution to the problem.  DACA did not grant the young people who applied for it a legal status. That is, the program did not give the recipients a legal right to stay in the United States. It only gave the recipients a promise not to seek their removal. As a creature of executive discretion, this meant that the promise could be broken by the same executive who granted it. DACA did not lead to permanent residency. It did not lead to citizenship. All DACA did was to keep the young people who applied for it in a holding pattern. Going back to the separation of powers, this is because the president does not have the authority to create legal status, only to ignore the consequences when a person has violated the law. 

Third, the continuation of DACA permitted Congress to remain lazy. While DACA was in place, the young people brought to the country illegally but raised as Americans were not going to be deported. They were given legal authority to work and pay taxes. Even if there was no path to citizenship, there was no immediate pressure on Congress. Why, then, should Congress act?  Just pretend that this non-solution was working and let things continue as is.

Ending DACA is now forcing the issue with Congress. If Congress believes these young people are deserving of relief, Congress must now pass real legislation to protect them. Presumably, this legislation will include a true legal status instead of a mere promise not to deport. Perhaps Congress will even create a method for those who merit it to earn true permanent residency and eventual citizenship. Then, these young people who were brought up to be Americans will truly become Americans. 

Finally, DACA has made these young people more sympathetic. It is easy to say enforcement only and illegals deserve to be sent back, when you haven't met a hard working and moral undocumented individual. But DACA allowed these young people to work openly. It allowed them to win the respect of professors, fellow students, bosses and co-workers alike. When you met a person just making an honest living because of DACA, it was hard not to like them. 

And that sympathy will turn into political pressure. People don't want to see their neighbors, co-workers, friends deported. Businesses, including industrial Giants, will not want to see valued employees suddenly unable to work. Congress will be under pressure to create a real legislative fix. 

The termination of DACA may yet result in a better future for young people brought to this country illegally by their parents. If Congress acts, it could result in a more secure legal status and a path to citizenship. If Congress doesn't act, it will give the American public yet one more thing to add to the list of congressional failures and reasons to vote members out of office. 

William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

The End of DACA; Forcing Congress to Act

DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was a popular program. DACA was meant to help people who were brought to the United States as children, due to no choice of their own, who were raised as Americans, but who lacked legal immigrant status. 

Despite having been raised here, having gone to school here, and identifying the United States as their home, these children could not hold a job legally. Often, their ability to go to college was hampered by the lack of legal status. Despite being raised as Americans, they had to live in the shadows, avoiding government attention and working in the underground economy. 

DACA recipients were sympathetic. They were stuck in their situation due to now fault of their own. Many were highly talented and very intelligent. If allowed to live and work openly, DACA recipients had great potential. 

To address the situation in which these children found themselves, President Obama created DACA. But the program was imperfect as best, and unconstitutional at worst. 

DACA is an exercise of deferred action. Deferred action is not a legal status. It does not give a person the legal right to stay in the United States. It is really nothing more than a promise; a promise not to seek the removal of a person, even though that person is present in the United States illegally. 

If you search the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, you will find that there is no statute that defines deferred action. There is no direct legislative authority for it. All there is in the statute is a reference that those who have received deferred action are eligible to apply for a legal right to work in the United States. 

At best, then, deferred action is indirectly authorized by law. But nothing in the law establishes it parameters. Nothing establishes to whom deferred action may be applied, or under what circumstances. 

Prior to DACA, deferred action was used mostly as an ad hoc fix when immigration law was imperfect. In many cases, deferred action was applied on a case by case basis, for humanitarian purposes when immigration law had harsh results. On occasion, deferred action was applied on a larger scale but on a temporary basis when an immigration program came to an end.  Special protections were granted by law to Liberians in the United States, for example, during the twenty year civil war in their country. When those legal protections expired, President Bush applied deferred action for one year to permit Liberians who had lived in the United States for a long time to adjust to their new situation. 

But before DACA, deferred action had never been used to create a program of immigration relief on such a scale. Indeed, the argument is that President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority as chief executive by creating a program that was legislative in nature. In this case, the president had no direct authority from Congress on creating such a program. No criteria was set by Congress on who would qualify for the program. No parameters were established on how long the program would last. President Obama created DACA whole cloth, establishing his own set of criteria for eligibility and his own judgment with respect to the length of the grant of relief.

To be clear, from the moment President Obama announced the creation of DACA, there were serious questions concerning whether he had violated the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. The constitutionality of DACA was further called into question when the President created similar programs, one aimed at granting deferred action to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and one that was an expansion of DACA, which were defeated in federal courts in the waining years of the Administration. 

Why then, did President Obama use such an imperfect tool to grant such relief?  After all, it was temporary. It granted no legal status. It gave no path to citizenship. It was nothing more than a promise that any succeeding administration could break. It was arguably unconstitutional. 

The answer lie in congressional inaction. Legislation had been pending since 2001 to address the situation of children who had been brought to the United States by their parents illegally. It was called the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. Despite originally having Republican support, the DREAM Act died in May of 2011.  When the DREAM Act failed to pass Congress, President Obama forced the issue by creating a program where this who would have received relief through the legislation would be given deferred action. 

President Trump, who publicly expressed support for DACA recipients on numerous occasions, now seems to be on the verge of ending the program. He is doing so despite pleadings by Republican lawmakers, such as Paul Ryan, to give Congress the chance to pass legislation to address the problem. In doing so, he has raised the ire of many in the public who find DACA recipients sympathetic. 

The question now is whether President Trump's actions will finally force Congress to enact a legal solution to the problem, or whether DACA recipients will simply be forced to return to the shadows to hide from being deported from the only home they've known. 

William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Antifa Social Media Confirm They Are a Violent Hate Movement

Are you still defending the antifa?  Still in denial of their hate-filled violent ways?  Or maybe you excuse and downplay their violence because it's only aimed at white supremacists. 

Well do yourself a favor. Peruse the social media sites of some of the antifa groups. They're not hard to find. Most of them bear the word "antifa" along with a geographical location, like "antifa USA," or "Berkeley antifa," or "antifa Philadelphia."  Be careful. There are certainly trolls out there posing as the antifa to stir up trouble. Of course, the troll accounts aren't really that far off, as the real antifa accounts spew enough hatred on their own. Here are just a few examples. 

The antifa hate the United States. They are not patriots, and very proudly let you know that. They have disdain for all symbols of this country, whether it's the flag or George Washington himself. Some of the groups celebrate flag burning, not as a protest over any particular issue, but as a protest against the country's very existence. To the antifa, the United States IS what's wrong. Their stated goal is to tear this country down. 

The antifa hate the police. They encourage fellow antifa members not to call the police, but fellow antifa members to take care of a situation. There are two reasons for this. The first is because the antifa view all police at the tool of fascism and capitalism, to oppress the powerless. The second is because the antifa can respond on their own with intimidation and violence without police interference. 

And finally, the antifa hate liberals. They can't stand that liberals have been defending them, and coopting part of their cause. Why?  They view liberals as spineless. Liberals don't have the guts to do what is necessary. They want to work within the system. The antifa want to destroy the system. I've seen many posts that pose the question, "I want to help, but I abhor violence, what can I do," with outright ridicule. To the antifa, you can't help unless you're willing to tear down the government and all of its institutions. 

Go ahead. Do the research for yourself. Browse the antifa's posts and social media page. If you are being honest with yourself, after you do you can't  deny that the antifa is a hate-filled movement bent on violent disruption as evil as neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Stop defending them. They honestly don't want it. 

William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Ignore the Antifa at Your Own Peril

Ignore the antifa at your own peril. 

While most of the media is focusing on the neo-Nazis and their responsibility in the violence in Charlottesville over the weekend, escaping attention is the role of the antifa. Perhaps more precisely, anyone who points out how the antifa contributed to the violence in Charlottesville is being shouted down angrily. This is despite clear evidence that the antifa was there, in force, armed, wearing helmets and body armor, spewing their own hate, and instigating violence. 

What is the antifa?  It is a loose organization of violent leftist extremist groups who share a disdain for law and order. They claim to be anti-racism, anti-authoritarianism, anti-globalism and anti-capitalism. Their one true organizing principle is that they are anarchists. 

They are anarchists because they do not trust government and its institutions. Rather, government is viewed as a tool to empower fascism, authoritarianism, capitalism and racism. So, the antifa operate outside the law, using violence and the threat of violence to impose their own belief of what society should be. The antifa don't ask permission. They start by threatening. If the threats don't work, they show up, in large numbers, and ready to engage in violence. 

The name is short for anti-fascists. Some claim that their roots go back to the 1930s in Europe, when fascism was on the rise. Others say that the current crop of antifa started in the 1980s, and took the name from the groups that preceded them in the 1930s. The movement began in Europe, but has since spread to the United States. 

The antifa is not the name of a single group. It is more of an organizing principle. The extremist groups use social media, websites, list-serves and other high tech media to communicate. They target conservative speakers and events. They intimidate venues with threats of violence to compel the cancellation of the events. When the intimidation doesn't work, they descend on the event in numbers to violently disrupt it. 

This year has seen an explosion of hate-filled antifa tactics. It started with Donald Trump's inauguration, when hate-filled antifa thugs, clad in black, smashed windows and set cars on fire in Washington. 

The tactics continued in Berkeley, when the antifa rioted in the streets of the liberal college town, setting fires, to protest a planned event featuring far-right wing speaker Milo Yoannopoulos. With this violence fresh in their minds, UC - Berkeley later cancelled a speaking engagement featuring conservative columnist Ann Coulter. 

In April, merely the threat of hundreds of unruly antifa member, ready to brawl, caused the cancellation of the annual Rose Parade, all because the local Republican Party had a tradition of marching. 

The tactics are to label their opponents as fascists or authoritarians. Once so labeled, the antifa clamp down on free speech, threatening harm to venues that dare allow the exchange of ideas the antifa deem repugnant. 

The antifa lurk in the shadows. They cover their faces with t-shirts, bandannas or masks, in a tactic known as "black bloc," to avoid identification. They thrive in anonymity. After all, they are committing acts of lawlessness, and could face repercussions for it. 

The ACLU of Virginia documented the antifa's presence and antagonism in Charlottesville. Many were clad in black, covered their faces, and sported helmets, body armor and weapons, in a show of intimidation. They shouted encouragements to the counter-protesting crowd, to initiate fights with the white supremacist protestors. Video footage caught the antifa beating protestors to the ground. Witnesses saw the antifa throwing rocks and bottles, just as the neo-Nazi protestors did. To be clear, the antifa descended on Charlottesville with the intent of creating a violent disruption to an event that had received a legal permit to proceed. 

Ignoring the antifa and their role in Charlottesville has only emboldened them. It is believed that the antifa took part in the unlawful destruction of public property in Durham, North Carolina, just days after the tragic events in Charlottesville. Seeing Charlottesville as a success, the antifa are likely to continue their reign of brutality, attempting to suppress the free expression of those whose ideas they find disagreeable. 

But for now, the antifa's targets are symbols of the Confederacy and the white supremacists who defend those symbols. By some in the media, and in the public, they are being viewed as heroes for opposing racism. Their bend toward lawless violence and vandalism is excused, or even justified, because of their targets. But the antifa answers to no external control. Allies today could easily be labeled authoritarians tomorrow and targeted for acrimonious savagery. Their tactic is to apply labels, manipulate the emotional baggage attached to those labels, and incite hate against their targets. 

To be clear, neo-Nazis came to Charlottesville in a show of aggression and intimidation that is repugnant to civil society. The white supremacists and neo-Nazis are a band of lawless thugs and deserve condemnation for their actions. But, By failing to recognize the role of the antifa in Charlottesville, society has chosen either to ignore a dangerous group of radical extremists, or worse, to justify its actions because at least it opposed hate and bigotry. This time. But there is no virtue in opposing hate, bigotry and lawlessness with more hate, bigotry and lawlessness. It only creates a never-ending cycle where civil society spirals out of control, and law and order is supplanted by private vigilanteism. The antifa need to be opposed and rooted out just as much as the white supremacists. 

William J. Kovatch, Jr.

References

Andrew Beale and Sonner Kehrt, "Behind Berkeley's Semester of Hate," New York Times (August 4, 2017).

Peter Beinart, "The Rise of the Violent Left," The Atlantic (September 2017). 

Doug Brown, "82nd Avenue Parade of the Roses Cancelled After Threats of Political Protest, Violence," Portland Mercury (April 25, 2017).

Brenna Cammeron, "Antifa: Left-Wing Militants on the Rise," BBC News (August 14, 2017).

Edmund Kozale, "The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots: Antifa Flies UNder the Radar Despite Escalating Acts of Violence Against President's Supporters," Lifezette.com (April 24, 2017).

Katie Mettler, "Portland Rose Parade Canceled After 'Antifascists' Threaten GOP Marchers," Washington Post (April 27, 2017).

Christina Silva, "What Is the Antifa?  Anti-Fascists Protestors and White Power Groups Were Battling Long Before Charlottesville," Newsweek (August 13, 2017).

Patrick Strickland, "US Anti-Fascists: 'We Can Make Racists Afraid Again,'" Al Jazeera, February 21, 2017).

Ian Tuttle, "The Roots of Left-Wing Violence," National Review (June 5, 2017).

Dave Weigel, "Fear of 'Violent Left' Preceded Events in Charlottesville," Washington Post (August 13, 2017).

While I Hate to Say it, President Trump Was Right; There is a Lot of Blame for the Charlottesville Violence to Go Around

Brace yourself.  What I am writing here is certainly unpopular.  It goes against the narrative that has been adopted by the mainstream press.  It defends people who have a hateful message.  What is worse, I am about to defend the actions of a president whom I despise, and whom I have constantly criticized.

 

My grandfather volunteered to join the army and fight the Nazis.  Nazi symbols are disgusting to me.  People who affirmatively quote Adolf Hitler to support their beliefs are vile.

 

I was born and raised in the North; Philadelphia to be exact.  I was rightfully taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  I consider secession of the Confederate States to have been am act of treason, and the Confederate battle flag a symbol of treason.

 

Racism is evil.  Judging a person based on the color of his or her skin or on his or her heritage is ignorant, closed-minded and hateful.

 

But we have a Constitution that protects free expression.  It is one of our most valued rights as Americans.  And it is meant to protect expression that is hateful and offensive to others.  I may despise what you have to say, but it is not my right to forcefully control what you say or how you think.  And it is not the job of our Government to control your thought or expression.

 

It would be an understatement to say that yesterday was a sad day in Charlottesville, Virginia.  What was meant to be a protest against the removal of a statue of Confederate General, and native Virginian, Robert E. Lee, turned into violent conflict which cost the life of one woman.  And while I agree that the First Amendment protects expression, but not violence, the narrative that has developed out of yesterday I find as disturbing as the messages of racism and hate that many came to Charlottesville to express.  Because the protestors expressed an unpopular and hateful message, they appear to have become an easy target upon which to pin the entire responsibility for the violence that occurred.  But as I look deeper into what happened, God help me, I agree with President Trump that was an “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.”

 

The overwhelmingly popular thing among the press and among politicians is to blame the “white supremacists,” “white nationalists,” and “Nazis” who came to Charlottesville to protest the planned removal of the statue of General Lee.  The protest had been planned for months.  The city initially granted a permit to hold the protest at Emancipation Park, where the statue currently stands.  To be sure, the protest attracted some of the worst of American society.  There is no denying that the protestors were racists, and carried with them symbols of hate such as the Southern Cross and the Nazi flag.

 

But the planned protest also attracted people who oppose the message of racism.  The city also approved a permit for those who opposed the message of the protestors to hold counter-protests at different parks in Charlottesville.  Some of the counter-protestors were well-intentioned.  They wanted to spread a message of peace and acceptance.  Some were religious leaders, who rightfully taught that Christ’s message was not about hate, and held payer sessions.  But it cannot be denied that some of the counter-protestors clearly came to Charlottesville looking for a fight.  Some came with the intention of breaking up the protest, and shouting down the protestors.

 

Once Charlottesville approved the permits for the counter-protestors, city officials recognized the potential for violence, and modified the permit for the protest planned for Emancipation Park.  The city attempted to have those who protested the removal of General Lee’s statue do so at a different park, miles away.

 

This is where the ACLU stepped in.  In support of the protestors, the ACLU went to federal court arguing that the Government has no right to regulate speech based on content.  The judge agreed, noting that Charlottesville only evoked the permit, and attempted to move the protest to a different location after it had approved the permits for the counter-protests.  That is, by approving the permits for the counter-protests, Charlottesville itself increased the risk of violence, and was using its own actions to suppress the message of the protestors.  Essentially, there is no right of veto given to dissenters.

 

As expected, violence broke out.  People were injured.  A man careened a car down a crowded street filled with other cars and a counter-protestors.  One woman was killed by the driver, caught as she was trying to cross the street. 

 

The accepted response has been to pin the blame for all of the violence on those who came to protest the removal of the statue.  They are the ones with the messages of hate.  They are the ones who sported the Nazi flags, wore camouflage, carried scary looking rifles, and supported white supremacy.  They were aggressive for engaging in this protest, and they must be condemned for it.

 

And thus, when the President referred to hatred, violence and bigotry on many sides, he was condemned for not placing blame entirely on the “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.”

 

The problem is that accepted narrative ignores the intentions of many of those who came to Charlottesville for the counter-protests.  Many of the counter-protestors deemed that the speech of the protestors was not worthy of being expressed freely.  Many came with the intent of thwarting fee speech, and to do so violently if necessary.  They came with the invitation of many city residents, who did not want a message of hate to be expressed in their city.  They came with their own hate and bigotry.

 

And those counter-protestors who aimed to suppress free expression were aided.  They were aided by businesses, such as Airbnb and Uber, who cancelled contracts and reservations made by those who intended to protest the removal of the statue of General Lee.  They were aided by the press, who mostly have an agenda to denounce racism and bigotry, and therefore crafted their coverage to make the protestors appear to be the sole bad guys.  They were aided by the state and local governments in Virginia, who allowed a situation that risked violence to exist, and then sat by until that violence descended on the city before acting, again adding credence to the narrative that the “white nationalists” and “Nazis” were solely responsible for violence.

 

Let’s consider some of the reporting of yesterday’s events.  Almost universally, prior to the use of the car as a battering ram, news articles described the protestors and their cause, using words like “white nationalist,” “Nazis,” and “white supremacists,” but then described the eruption of violence in the passive voice.  That is, press reports used terms like “the rally quickly exploded,” and “violence erupted.”  In describing the actions of those in attendance, press reports said things such as “people were seen throwing objects.”

 

The use of the passive voice is key.  The passive voice allows a writer to state that an action has occurred, but without identifying who did the action.  “A rock was thrown,” but who threw the rock?

 

But, by mentioning the protest groups first, and emphasizing their hateful agenda, the news articles were giving the impression that it was the “white nationalists” or “Nazis” who instigated the violence without outright stating it.  Indeed, the press was quick to point out how protestors were openly carrying firearms, an act that is legal in Virginia.  But of course openly carrying a firearm must indicate a tendency toward violence.  Thus, the images and reporting gave the impression that it was the protestors who meant to instigate the violence

 

Who did instigate the violence?  I was in Dover, Delaware and not Charlottesville, so I cannot rightly say.

 

What I can say is that I got more information from monitoring the Virginia ACLU’s Twitter feed than I did from the press.   What I was able to derive from the ACLU was that the protestors were outnumbered by counter-protestors, that the counter-protestors included so-called “antifa” groups, which is short for anti-fascists, that some of the antifa protestors themselves wore intimidating black outfits and sported shields, helmets and weapons, that the counter-protestors taunted the protestors as they made their way toward Emancipation Park, that both protestors and counter-protestors threw objects at each other such as rocks and water bottles, and that the police, who were present in force and in riot gear, were given orders not to intervene even when fist fights erupted and injuries ensued.

 

Press reports were quick to note the slogans of the protestors, such as “blood and soil.”  And of course, the use of the word “blood” gives the impression of a group ready to use violence.  But blood can also refer to heritage, such as “the blood of my ancestors.”  And it was only by chance that I found reported  in the UK Daily Mail that some counter-protestors yelled slogans such as “we’re here, we’re gay, we fight the KKK.”  Certainly, “fight” has many connotations, such as a peaceful struggle.  But “fight” can also refer to violent conflict.  And again, it was only from the Virginia ACLU Twitter feed that I learned that some counter-protestors yelled things such as “punch a Nazi in the face,” and “f*** you” to protestors, obvious statements meant to instigate and incite violence.

 

The fact that these counter-protestors’ slogans and statement were buried by the mainstream US press indicates a bias in reporting; that the US press on the scene had an agenda of denouncing the “white supremacists” and “Nazis,” and highlighted slogans from the protestors that gave an impression of a violent intent, while downplaying the slogans from counter-protestors that also gave an impression of a violent intent.

 

Another example of the shoddy reporting of yesterday’s events concerns the declaration of the police that the event was an “unlawful assembly.”  Media outlets all reported that an “unlawful assembly” had been declared.  But no media outlet took of the step of engaging in in-depth analysis to research and explain what an “unlawful assembly” is.

 

To find the answer, all one had to do was to look in the Virginia criminal code.  An “unlawful assembly” occurs when three or more people assemble with the common intent to advance some purpose (which can be lawful or unlawful) with the commission of acts of force or violence, or acts likely to jeopardize the public safety, peace or order.  But the criminal code only defines what an “unlawful assembly” is, and states that those who participate are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.  The law does not give the government the right and authority to declare an event an “unlawful assembly.”  To the contrary, it is a criminal charge that must be brought and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a court of law.  Police do have the right to warn people to disperse.  And those remaining after such a warning run the risk of being found guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor if the event is found, by a court of law, to have been an “unlawful assembly.”

 

The manner by which the declaration of an “unlawful assembly” was reported, therefore, was misleading.  It is not the case that the police can unilaterally revoke a lawfully obtained permit for a demonstration by making a declaration of an “unlawful assembly.”  This was the initial impression I was given by the media reports.  The most that the police can do is to give people a warning to disperse from an event, and give notice that the police considered the event an “unlawful assembly,” giving warning that the police intended to charge people who remained with a misdemeanor under Virginia law.  But it would be a criminal charge that would still have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a Virginia court.  A police declaration of an “unlawful assembly” may be a consideration in court, but not conclusory.

 

Nonetheless, the warning applied equally to all in attendance, not just to the “white nationalist” protestors.  This would mean that the counter-protestors, such as the antifa groups, ran an equal risk of being arrested and charged with a crime for not dispersing. 

 

But again, this was not reported by the press during the event, thereby giving an impression that something those gun-toting racist Nazis did sparked the declaration.

 

Whether we want to believe it or not, the fix was in.  The press did not like the message of the protestors.  The press, therefore, shaped the story to give the impression that the protestors were the bad guys, and that the protestors instigated the violence without outright stating who threw the first punch.

 

And yes, the protestors’ message was hateful.  The idea of racial superiority is hateful.  Toting Nazi flags and the Confederate battle flag, wearing t-shirts with quotes from Adolf Hitler, and even just the appearance of known klansman David Duke, all of it is hateful and aggressive.  All of it is offensive.  All of it is unpopular, and rightfully so, to the vast majority of Americans.  And this is why almost universally politicians and community leaders condemned the protests in Charlotte.  But can you say that the hateful message itself is solely responsible for the violence?  Or were there people, a sizeable number too, who took it upon themselves to protest the protestors, and do so in their own aggressive manner?  Were there people who took it upon themselves to enforce their version of correct thinking, and who descended upon the tiny town of Charlottesville with the intent of intimidating the intimidators?  Could it be that the responsibility for the violence falls not just on the shoulders of the protestors with the hateful message, but also on the counter-protestors who came looking for a fight?  The counter-protestors who themselves had hatred and bigotry in their hearts.  But of course, it is hatred and bigotry that is acceptable, because it was aimed at those evil “Nazis” and “white supremacists.”

 

But that is not the popular thing to say.  The vast majority of Americans want to show their opposition to racism, and rightfully so.  Indeed, we as Americans, myself included, want to stamp out racism and build a society based on equality and respect for all, no matter skin color or heritage.  So, the popular thing, in denouncing the white supremacists and their agenda is to call them terrorists, and label the events in Charlottesville as a terrorist act.

 

But was it?  What is the poof?  Well, a supposed white supremacist raced a car down a city street, filled with counter-protestors and other cars, injuring 19 people and killing one.  The driver has been caught, and is now facing several criminal charges, including murder.  The act was vile.  The diver is inhuman, and deserves to have the full force of the law thrown against him.

 

But was it terrorism?  Terrorism implies an organized effort of a group of people to commit such a heinous act so as to instill fear.  The act was certainly heinous.  But there is no indication was it was pre-planned.  Indeed, some press reports are indicating that a counter-protestor threw a rock at the driver moments before the driver careened down the crowded street, either with the intent to serious hurt or kill someone, or totally indifferent to the possibility that his act of anger would hurt or kill someone.  There is no indication that it was pre-planned, or that anyone else in the group of protestors incited him to do it.

 

It was committed by a man who was twenty.  Those of us who live in Virginia and have children about ready to become driving age are taught that the parts of the brain that control judgment and impulses do not fully develop until the age of twenty-five.  This is not to excuse his behavior.  But it is meant to point out that the most abhorrent act of violence was committed by an immature jerk, who may have been provoked, and who chose to give in to the immediate anger, knowing full well the probable consequences to the innocent lives in his path.  It is certainly a crime.  The circumstances should certainly influence the eventual punishment from a court of law.  But calling it terrorism is simply an attempt to use the acts of one out of control jerk with anger issues to imply criminality on a group because that group’s message is hateful and unpopular.

 

So, for the sake of our democracy, and out of defense of one of the rights we hold so dear, I dissent.  At this point, I refuse to buy the popular narrative that it was only the “white supremacists,” “white nationalists” and “Nazis” who were responsible for the violence.  There were counter-protestors who came looking for a fight.  Government action allowed the situation to exist, and then allowed the situation to fester beyond control.  I abhor the message of racism and bigotry.  But there is a lot of blame for yesterday to go around.  I refuse to place that blame solely on one group simply because I find that group’s message offensive and distasteful.

 

William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Whitewashing American History: Why I Oppose the Removal of References to Confederate Generals from Public Spaces

This morning, I dropped my daughter off at JEB Stuart High School so she could finish her summertime online gym class. (Little overachiever wanted to clear a space in her schedule for another class. But that's another topic.) I started thinking about the controversy in Fairfax County surrounding the school's name. 

JEB Stuart was a general in the Confederacy during the Civil War. Recently, under community pressure, the Fairfax County School Board agreed to change the name of the school by 2019. This reminded me of the recent removal of monuments and memorials of Confederate historical figures in New Orleans, and indeed the movement to whitewash the Confederacy from American history. It is a movement I find frightening and antithetical to the very principles of our free society. 

Don't get me wrong. I was born and raised in Philadelphia. From my perspective, we won the Civil War. Indeed, the Philadelphia public school system didn't sugar coat things in the 1970s and 80s. We were taught that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. Period. 

And as I chose to go to college in Miami, I was warned about speeding in the South. They never stopped fighting the Civil War I was told. If you get caught in South Carolina or Georgia, don't dare crack a joke about General Sherman with the state trooper. You'll find speeding escalating to a full body cavity search. 

Being the somewhat defiant thinker that I am, the stories of my youth of how some people in the South have never stopped fighting only made me want to go to a Civil War museum in Georgia one day, sporting a Sherman t-shirt so that when a tour guide started talking about Northern atrocities, I could start changing "North! North! North!"

When I moved to Northern Virginia, then, I was somewhat shocked when I learned that the annoying statue in the middle of Washington Street in Old Town Alexandria was dedicated to the Confederate soldiers who left Alexandria when the Union occupied the city as a buffer against Washington. I was more shocked to learn that residents of the city had proudly resisted its removal, even if, quite frankly, it's a traffic hazard. 

But the Civil War is part of our collective history as Americans. And while we like to forget about it, the Union was no beacon of morality both during and after the Civil War. While I joke about General William T. Sherman, the fact is that the burning and destruction of towns behind him as he drove to Savanah would be considered a war crime today. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson cemented an official US Government policy of punishing the South through the harshness of Reconstruction. While my family may stem mostly from late 19th and early 20th Century immigrants, many families in the South were direct descendants of people who suffered through "Northern atrocities."  To them, the erection of memorials to Confederate figures was an act of political expression against perceived oppression. 

Which is why I oppose removing any and all references to the Confederacy. The drive reminds me of the Thought Police from George Orwell's masterpiece 1984. Those in charge get to force their point of view on everyone else, and punish wrongful thought. The problem is that we have a First Amendment to protect against that. It may very well be offensive to me that people want to honor Confederate generals and waive their Confederate battle flags. But offensive political expression is exactly what the freedom of speech is supposed to protect. Perhaps if a school continues to go by the name of JEB Stuart High School, that shows me that I am free to continue to call for the removal of Donald Trump from office. 

One of the problems we face in modern American society is increased polarization. That is, we have large segments who believe their view is the right view, the only view that should be permitted. Make no mistake, it is a problem on both the left and the right. 

In this regard, perhaps we should take a lesson from Quebec. There, in the Plains of Abraham, is a memorial to both Generals Wolfe of the British and Montcalm of the French. It is one of the few places where both the winner and loser of a battle are memorialized. It is a symbol of how two very different people, somehow put aside their past animosities and learned to live with each other in peace. 

William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

The Beginning of the End of the Trump Presidency?

I don't think it will be long now.

Shortly after the election, I had lunch with a friend who was amazed that I predicted a Donald Trump victory even when he was far behind in the polls. I made another prediction that day, telling her that I did not believe Trump would last his entire term.

My reasoning?  He didn't do this for any grand policy reasons or love of country. He ran for love of Trump. Trump is a skillful self-promoter and learned very well how to get ratings in a reality tv world. He used that to manipulate his popular name and give the public a very entertaining (albeit disturbingly so) campaign. But he doesn't have the skills to govern.

If you look at his business career, how did he function?  It wasn't through any powerful negotiating skills, or business acumen. It was simply by throwing his money around. Just ask the many contractors who worked on Trump projects but never got paid their contracted rates. Presumably, they were attracted to work on his real estate developments by his name and the promise of full payment. But when push came to shove, and full payment was not forthcoming, Trump's response was to say "sue me."  Since the little guy knew Trump had the means to buy fancy lawyers and tie up any lawsuit in protracted litigation, the little guy would give in and take what crumbs Trump had to offer. Money won.

But that was not going to be the reality of the world Trump was facing once he got in the White House. The President may be the focus point of government, mostly because it's easier for the media to follow one person. But the government consists of another 535 large egos residing just down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue as well as thousands of independently minded people in the judiciary. These are people who have their own sources of power, and are not solely dependent on Trump for their position. I explained to my friend that Trump was going to find that he couldn't always get what he wanted simply by throwing his name and money around. This was particularly true given how small the Republican majority in the Senate was, and how he had personally insulted many GOP Senators.

Trump enjoyed greater support in the House. But that was due mainly to GOP gerrymandering which had given disproportionately large power to the most radical wing of the Republican Party, all in the name of creating safe GOP districts. It is this wing of party that supported Trump largely due to their hate for Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and because Trump was willing to entertain them with aggressive attacks on their Democratic opponents. But no one with any hint of intelligence had ever accused Trump of being a true conservative.

So conservatives in the House who did not like Trump would simply be biting their lips and biding their time until Trump was no longer useful to them. If Satan himself could get their agenda passed, well then so be it, so long as Satan had a high approval rating.

But, a number of things have happened since Inauguration Day. First, starting on day one, the press has refused to give the President the adoration he thinks he deserves, engaging in a constant battle with the Administration. And during much of this battle, the press has unearthed inaccuracy after inaccuracy from the White House.

Second, the President reportedly has become increasingly dissatisfied with his job, as he did not realize the full magnitude of what running a government would entail. It is as if Trump expected that once he became President, all he had to do was be the face of the government, and receive the adulation of the people. He falsely convinced himself of his own popularity, and has been surprised that running the White House was not as easy as putting on the show of running a fake executive board room on tv.

Third, in his dissatisfaction with the job, and his drive to be popular, he allegedly isolated himself into spending an inordinate amount of time watching tv news and talk shows, and then uncontrollably tweeting nasty things about those he thought were mean to him.

Fourth, he offered no vision or support for what was supposedly his agenda, other than cajoling other Republicans. As a result, his own party's long-running promise to repeal Obamacare crumbled. Trump was left unable to fathom how a GOP majority in both houses could fail to pass a bill, indeed any bill, on the subject. And as his agenda has failed, he has repeatedly and publicly attacked members of his own party in Congress. Indeed, whenever his agenda has faced road blocks from other people in power, his response has always been to attack other branches of government. This is the same thing he did to the judiciary as his travel ban faced defeat after defeat in the courts.

Fifth, more interested in protecting his name, Trump has engaged in behaviors that appear to many to be a cover-up, if not a campaign of obstruction of justice, regarding the investigation of Russia's possible involvement in the presidential election. His megalomaniacal drive to kill the investigation has led to the firing of an FBI Director, attacks on an Attorney General who had been his earliest and most loyal supporter, consideration of self-pardoning, a desire to fire the new investigator, and possibly creating legal jeopardy for his own son.

Sixth, his own staff in the White House has descended into chaos. Indeed, with all of the seismic changes in staffing, it has recently been reported that Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, who were thought to be bitter rivals at the beginning of the Administration, had become close allies just before Priebus' firing in an effort for self-preservation against the Trump inner circle. It is chaos of the President's own making and apparent entertainment, as it has been reported that he fired Priebus for failing to lower himself to Anthony Scaramucci's level and fight back against the Mooch's shockingly base attacks.

It is a chaos that required a former Marine Corps General, who's major accomplishment in the Administration to date had been to threaten to separate mothers from their children as they sought to cross the southern border desperately seeking to flee the violence in Central America, to assume control of the White House staff and fire the colorful but abrasive Director of Communications after the Mooch had been on the job for only ten days.

And finally, polls have been published showing not only historically low approval ratings for Trump, but also that the House of Representatives could very well be in play in the mid-term elections.

It is this last development that could very well be the turning point. It appears that Trump may no longer be useful to congressional Republicans. Indeed, his brand name may even bet hurtful to their electoral aspirations. With the President showing that he cannot even be loyal to members of his own party, will they now be loyal to him?

Based on all of these developments, I would not be surprised if efforts are being made to gently push Trump into resignation. He is reportedly not happy being in the "dump" of the White House, and spends so much time outside of Washington anyway. As much as the GOP desperately want Chief of Staff Kelly to control the President, Trump will be who Trump is. He cannot be pushed to the shadows of his own presidency while the big boys do the actual governing. And so, with Republican pressure, I think the time is nearing where the Trump Presidency will end. If his poll numbers keep declining, the party will either find a face-saving way to have Trump resign, or they will find the backbone to remove him.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Democrats: We need you and your sons in the Boy Scouts

Look, I know the temptation is strong after Donald Trump's embarrassingly partisan speech to the Boy Scout national jamboree to condemn the organization and pull your sons out of the Boy Scouts. But now more than ever we need you in the Boy Scouts.

One of the greats links among the Boy Scouts is the Boy Scout Law. Let me review some of the points of that law. A Scout is friendly. A Scout is courteous. A Scout is kind. The Boy Scouts is a brotherhood of different types of young man from all across this country. In fact, when I was a scout I remember going to camp and having the opportunity to meet scouts from all over the world. The scouts teach tolerance and diversity. When we gather for a scouting event, we know we are in a room full of friends. It doesn't matter if they're a Democrat or Republican a Libertarian or a member the Green Party. We all believe in doing our duty to God in our country, and helping other people at all times.

And we need this diversity. Sadly, politics in our nations capital has become poisonous.  Members of both major parties are more interested in securing power, than they are in securing good governance. If we as a nation are to continue to be strong, then our leaders need to reach across the aisle, put aside petty differences and do what is best for the American people.

Scouting helps us to this. At a gathering like the national jamboree, young men have the opportunity to meet and interact with other young men who come from different parts of the country, and who have different ideas and backgrounds from them.  Scouts learn from different points of view. Scouts learn to share ideas. Scouts learn what it means to be friendly, courteous and kind while working together to build a greater future for our country.

So resist the temptation. We need you and your boys, so we can show that it is possible to have a dialogue from different points of view, and still consider ourselves brothers. That is truly what Scouting is about. And that is our hope for the future of this great nation of ours.

William J. Kovatch, Jr.