Not surprisingly, my Great Falls City Commissioner email inbox has been very interesting recently.
So in doing my best to respond to citizen’s demands for transparency, here are two emails representing the current social and cultural divide in our country, both of which I received within the last three days.
Here’s the first.
Here’s the other.
Great Falls, our beautiful corner of creation isn’t as removed from the big, bad world as it once was or as we might like it to be.
Once again we are seeing throngs of angry ‘protesters’ tear down, deface, and destroy publicly owned statues and monuments which memorialize national historical figures.
Personally, I think a reasonable argument can be made that it’s inappropriate and offensive to honor Confederate generals who were slave owners by placing their images in the public square.
However there is absolutely no justification for allowing mobs of angry rioters to destroy public property. Period.
The removal of symbols and statues from public property, regardless of the reason for doing so, should be carried out in a legal and orderly manner. Not by mob rule.
Furthermore, once the ‘social justice warriors’ start down the road of The Purge it’s almost impossible to stop it from getting out of hand.
One need look no further than the recent attempted vandalism and ruin of statues honoring American icons George Washington and U.S. Grant to see that common sense has fled and fools have rushed in.
But let’s bring it on home to Great Falls. Why limit the madness to big cities and political controversies in places far removed from right here in River City?
Did you know that Merriweather Lewis and William Clark were both slave owners and that Clark was “…a slave owner known to deal harshly with his slaves” and that “he brought York, one of his slaves, with him” on the expedition?
So let me ask the local gang of ‘social justice warriors’, should we abandon all references to Lewis and Clark here in Great Falls because they were slave owners?
How many statues depicting the Corps of Discovery are you willing to deface and tear down in your mission to erase history and cleanse it of it’s uncomfortable and even brutal realities.
How many plaques and monuments and buildings bearing the names of Lewis and Clark are you going to deface and destroy so you can feel all righteous in carrying out your self-appointed mission?
I don’t really expect any of the Great Falls anti-history crew to actually raise their hands and lead the charge against our L&C heritage here. They seldom, if ever, use their real names, choosing instead to make their demands and issue their manifestos from behind the curtain of anonymity.
After all, a few of them are running for the legislature or have appearances to keep up in Great Falls, so they can’t really let us know who they actually are or what they actually believe.
But they are here and they will carry out their mission if given an opportunity.
Editors note: we’re adding this poll question to Tryon’s piece.
Friday, folks gathered in front of the Great Falls Civic Center to show their solidarity in a Black Lives Matter rally. Good for them.
In the midst of the roiling national turmoil we are all currently experiencing, and in spite of widely divergent views held on a variety of racial and social issues, there is one thing on which we should all find common ground – the right to freely express our opinions and exercise our First Amendment Rights.
And here it is in all of it’s magnificent beauty and simplicity:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Of course the word “peaceably” is paramount. The danger of descending into chaos and violence during an assembly for protest is ever present and all too real, as we have all witnessed on our TV screens over the last nine days.
And too often too many folks overlook the meaning and import of the first phrase of the First Amendment, and therefore misinterpret the heart of our Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law…”, which points to the unmistakable intention of the Framers – our Constitution was not written to tell citizens what they are allowed to do, but rather it was written to spell out precisely what our government is NOT ALLOWED TO DO.
So though we may disagree, even about fundamentals, let’s ALL celebrate our precious God given rights to say so freely. Peaceably.
Take a look at the picture at the top of this article. It was published on the Vox “news” site today with the headline, “Trump’s latest tweets are from an alternate reality where the protests are out of control”.
That particular picture is intended to remind you of someone. The headline with it is intended to make you believe that anyone who thinks that some of the protests have gotten out of control is “from an alternate reality”.
The alternate reality is actually the space that Vox occupies because they apparently believe we can’t see whats going on in our country with our own eyes.
“Oh”, but you say, “well Vox is just a left-wing propaganda rag, real news media isn’t like that.” You’re only half right, the first half.
Here’s a headline from ABC News yesterday.
Do you see the subtle deception and bias here? The President didn’t say he was going to use the military to “stop protests”. That’s not just an innocent mistake, it’s an outright lie.
Here’s what the President actually said.
“As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property…We will end it now.”
You can read the full statement from the President here.
“Oh”, but you say, “that’s the national media, our local media gives us the straight scoop.” Wrong.
Here’s a headline also from yesterday’s Great Falls Tribune online.
No, that is a direct lie. The President did not call protests “acts of domestic terror”.
Here is what the President actually said.
“Small-business owners have seen their dreams utterly destroyed. New York’s Finest have been hit in the face with bricks. Brave nurses, who have battled the virus, are afraid to leave their homes. A police precinct station has been overrun. Here in the nation’s capital, the Lincoln Memorial and the World War Two Memorial have been vandalized. One of our most historic churches was set ablaze. A federal officer in California, an African American enforcement hero, was shot and killed.
These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror. The destruction of innocent life and the spilling of innocent blood is an offense to humanity and a crime against God.”
The Great Falls Tribune is lying to all of us with their dishonest headline.
They are fully aware that most folks just read a headline and move on without reading the article. Is it any wonder that they’re a laughingstock in the town they’re supposed to be serving?
And is it any wonder that the mainstream media in general is held in such low esteem by the American public.
Detailing an alleged incident from 1993, Tara Reade told Yahoo! News that Biden digitally penetrated her:
She told part of her story in 2019, when Lucy Flores wrote in The Cut about the inappropriate way Biden smelled her hair and kissed the top of her head. At the time, several other women came forward to say that Biden had touched them in ways that made them uncomfortable, including Reade, who said that Biden used to put his hands on her shoulders and run his fingers up and down her neck. Now, she has detailed what she says is the entirety of her experience with Biden on The Katie Halper Show.
According to Reade, Biden pressed her up against a wall and digitally penetrated her without her consent. “It happened all at once, and then… his hands were on me and underneath my clothes,” she says. She also remembers him asking “do you want to go somewhere else?” and then, when she had pulled away, “Come on, man, I heard you liked me.” Reade says that “everything shattered” in that moment and his claim that he thought she liked him made her feel like she had “done this” somehow. “I looked up to him, he was my father’s age. He was this champion of women’s rights in my eyes,” she says. “I wanted to be a senator; I didn’t want to sleep with one.”
Remember the character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh? The reflexive preaching that Christine Blasey Ford was to be automatically believed?
Or how about Biden’s own words in the past?
During the Kavnaugh hearings, Biden told the Washington Post, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real.”
Would he also return the money to those who paid off their loans? Or would they just lose out for having done the right thing by paying back the money they borrowed? https://t.co/5pF29FoprS
George Washington’s Farewell Address is a letter written by the first American President, George Washington, to “The People of the United States of America”. Washington wrote the letter near the end of his second term as President, before his retirement to his home Mount Vernon.
Washington begins his warnings to the American people by trying to convince them that their independence, peace at home and abroad, safety, prosperity, and liberty are all dependent upon the unity between the states. As a result, he warns them that the union of states, created by the Constitution, will come under the most frequent and focused attacks by foreign and domestic enemies of the country.
In regard to foreign alliances, Washington felt it was necessary to support France and to align with them. Washington warns the American people to be suspicious and look down upon anyone who seeks to abandon the Union, to secede a portion of the country from the rest, or seeks to weaken the bonds that hold the constitutional union together.
To promote the strength of the Union, he urges the people to place their identity as Americans above their identities as members of a state, city, or region, and focus their efforts and affection on the country above all other local interests.
Washington further asks the people to look beyond any slight differences between them in religion, manners, habits, and political principles, and place their independence and liberty above all else, wanting everyone to be united.
Washington continues to express his support of the Union by giving some examples of how he believes the country, its regions, and its people are already benefiting from the unity they currently share.
He then looks to the future by sharing his belief that the combined effort, and resources of its people will protect the country from foreign attack, and allow them to avoid wars between neighboring nations that often happen due to rivalries, and competing relations with foreign nations.
He argues that the security provided by the Union will also allow the United States to avoid the creation of an overgrown military establishment, which he sees as one of the greatest threats to liberty, especially the republican liberty that the United States has created.
Washington warns the people that political factions who seek to obstruct the execution of the laws created by the government, or prevent the constitutional branches from enacting the powers provided them by the constitution may claim to be working in the interest of answering popular demands or solving pressing problems, but their true intentions are to take the power from the people and place it in the hands of unjust men.
Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole.
His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others.
While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.
Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination”of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.”
From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”
Washington goes on and acknowledges the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies…
…but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.
Isn’t it a shame we haven’t honored the wishes of our founding father…
He argues that the security provided by the Union will also allow the United States to avoid the creation of an overgrown military establishment, which he sees as one of the greatest threats to liberty, especially the republican liberty that the United States has created.
