President Donald Trump

Summary of Chapters 1-15, published in RAIS, August 2020; and ResearchLEAP, February 2021.

Summary of Chapters 16 - 30, published in RAIS, October, 2020, and ResearchLEAP, April 2021.

 

Synthisophy - Integrating the wisdoms of history into present culture

Roots – Synthesis/History/Sophy

Synthesis - the integration of separate material or abstract entities into a single  
or unified whole

History - what has happened in the past; a detailed description of past events as
relating to a particular people, country, period, etc…

Sophy - Greek root: wisdom, knowledge; an intellectual system embracing
knowledge and truth; study of the real world based on fact and truth, science

As you know, the USA today is a very polarized society. Technology in the Digital Age can be challenging. It can also be an avenue for us to interact despite differences in viewpoints and geography. That is the role of Synthisophy, integrating the wisdoms of history based on fact and truth into present culture. To foster an understanding of the real world, it’s important to learn about points of view which don’t match your own.

Citizens are the crux of democracy, an educated and well informed citizenry is vital for the survival of a democratic republic. As Benjamin Franklin said after exiting the Constitutional Convention and was asked what sort of government the delegates had created, his answer was, “We’ve given you a Republic, can you keep it?” With synthisophy in mind the answer to his question is “Yes, we can.”

Synthisophy
Synthisophy
Synthisophy

"We've given you a Republic, can
you keep it?" Ben Franklin after
the Constitutional Convention

"If we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed
ourselves." Abraham Linclon

"United we stand, divided
we fall." John F. Kennedy
Inaugural speech

"I believe, as I always have, 
that America's strength is in
'We the People.'" Ronald Reagan

Here are the latest discussions:

What do you think?  Former Trump adviser  Peter Navarro was arrested by the FBI on Friday following charges brought by federal prosecutors for criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to cooperate with the House panel investigating the Capitol riot. Here’s a statement from Carl Bernstein, 6.3.22, on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN, in response to the indictment of Peter Navarro.

I think the Navarro indictment is a big deal in that it indicates the defiance of all the people around Donald Trump to tell the story of what happened and especially the story of attempting to keep Joe Biden from succeeding to the Presidency. Everything goes to January 6th, goes to 1:00 PM January 6th, which is the only time specified in the law which the President of the United States can be formally elected.  And everything that Trump did, everything that Steve Bannon advocated, everything that the lawyers around Trump tried to do was to prevent that election from occurring on January 6th at 1:00 PM.  And that includes trying to get Pence out of the picture, so Pence could not preside over the duly elected President of the United States to take office. So what we have is really a seditious President of the United States who is trying to foment insurrection to keep his successor from taking office, staging a coup. What the January 6th committee is doing is establishing a time line that will show definitively how Donald Trump, his lawyers and those closest to him attempted to stage this coup so there would be no real election of the President of the Unite States and Trump could continue to be in office.

Share your views at facebook/synthisophy!

What do you think?  Here are statements and testimony from the first hearing of the January 6th Committee, 6.9.22:

Statement from Former Attorney General William Barr presented by the Committee: “I repeatedly told the President on no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud that would have affected the outcome of the election.”

Statement from Ivanka Trump presented by the Committee commenting on Barr’s statement that the department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election: “It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying.”

Public statement by former Vice President Pence presented by the Committee: “I had no right to overturn the election. The Presidency belongs to the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American President.”

A statement from a federal judge in response to evidence presented by the Committee: “If President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transfer of power, undermining American Democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6th will repeat itself.”

Testimony by Capitol Police Officer Carolyn Edwards who was at the Capitol on January 6th.  She was in the first responder unit. She was asked to share one memory of that day that stands most vividly in her mind.  Her was her response: “I can. The time when I talked about falling behind MPDS lines. I remember because I had been kind of shielded away because I was holding those stairs, so I was not able really to see what was going on. When I fell behind that line and I saw – I can just remember my breath catching in my throat because what I saw was just a war scene. I could not believe my eyes, there were officers on the ground. You know, they were bleeding, they were throwing up, I saw friends with blood all over their faces. I was slipping in people’s blood, I was catching people as they fell.  It was carnage, it was chaos. I have never in my wildest dreams thought a police officer, as a law enforcement officer, I would find myself in the middle of a battle.  I am trained to detain a couple of subjects and handle a crowd.  But I am not combat trained. And that day, it was just hours of hand to hand combat. Hours of dealing with things that were way beyond any law enforcement officer is ever trained for. And I just remember that moment of stepping behind the line and just seeing the absolute war zone that the west front had become.”

 

Share your views at facebook/synthisophy.

What do you think? A bipartisan group of senators unveiled an agreement on principle for gun safety legislation on Sunday (6.11.22) in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas. The chief negotiators of the deal are Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. The announcement includes the support of 10 Republican senators, which would give the proposal enough support to overcome the Senate filibuster.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said (6.14.22) that he will support passing a bill that would reform gun laws if the text matches the framework proposed in the agreement.

Here’s a brief summary of that agreement:

‘Red flag’ laws  are aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others.

Mental health and telehealth investment to increase access to mental health, suicide prevention programs and other support services.

Closing the so-called boyfriend loophole which deals with whether unmarried partners could keep guns if they were found guilty of violence against a dating partner.

Enhanced review process for buyers under 21 - a more thorough review process for people between ages 18 and 21 who go to buy a gun like an AR-15.

Clarifying the definition of a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer - require more firearm sellers who are proven to be “engaged in the business of selling firearms” to register to become Federally Licensed Firearm dealers.

School security resources to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools, while also supporting school violence prevention efforts and training for school employees and students.

Straw purchasing penalties on "straw purchases" by people buying weapons for others who could not pass a background check.

 

Share your views at facebook/synthisophy!

What do you think? Here is testimony from the fourth January 6th Hearing (6.21.22) on the Capitol attack and the 2020 Presidential election.  The following are interchanges between Representative Adam Schiff of California and Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers:

SCHIFF: Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. Before we begin with the questions I have prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to this hearing. Have you had a chance to review that statement?

BOWERS: My Council called from Arizona and read it to me, yes.

SCHIFF: And in that statement, former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, and then references a conversation in November 2020 in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, that he had won Arizona. Did you have such a conversation with the President?

BOWERS: I did

SCHIFF: And that part that I read to you, is that false?

BOWERS: Anyone who said that I said that the election was rigged, that would not be true.

SCHIFF: And when the former President in a statement today claimed that you told him threat he won in Arizona, is that also false.

BOWERS: That is also false.

SCHIFF: Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani in which they discussed the result of the Presidential election in Arizona, particularly allegations of election fraud. During that conversation, did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of election fraud he was making?

BOWERS: On multiple occasions, yes.

SCHIFF: And when you ask him for evidence what did he say?

BOWERS: He said they did have proof.  I asked him, do you have names? He said they did have proof. He said they have 200,000 illegal immigrants, five or six thousand dead people, et cetera.  I said, do you have their names?  Yes.  Will you give them to me?  Yes. The President interrupted and said give the man what he needs Rudy.  He said, I will.

SCHIFF: So Mr. Giuliani was claiming in the call that there were hundreds of thousands of undocumented people and thousands of dead people who had reportedly voted in the election?

BOWERS: Yes

SCHIFF: And did you ask him for evidence of that?

BOWERS: I did?

SCHIFF: Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call or after the call. Or to this day?

BOWERS: Never.

SCHIFF: And at some point did Mr., Giuliani ask one of the other attorneys on his team to help him out with the evidence?

BOWERS: He did. He asked Jen Ellis. Do we have the proof Miss Ellis? And she said yes. I said I want the names, do you have the names?  Yes.  Do, you have how they voted?  Yes, we have all the information.  I said, can you get me that information?  Did you bring it with you?  She said No, it’s not with me, but we can get it to you.

SCHIFF: At some point did one of them make a comment that they did not have evidence but they had a lot of theories?

BOWERS: That was Mr. Giuliani.

SCHIFF: What exactly did he say?

BOWERS: He said we’ve got a lot of theories, we just don’t have the evidence.  I don’t know if that was a gaffe or maybe he didn’t think it through…

SCHIFF: During any of the meetings, did anyone ever provide you evidence to affect the outcome of the election in Arizona?

BOWERS: No one provided me such evidence, ever.

SCHIFF: Did the President call you again in that later December?

BOWERS: Yes sir, he did.

SCHIFF: Did you tell the President that you support him, that you voted for him, and that you are not going to do anything illegal for him?

BOWERS: I did.

SCHIFF: Nevertheless, John Eastman, his lawyer called you and said he had a specific ask that would have required you to do just what you told the President you wouldn’t do, something that would violate your oath, is that correct?

BOWERS: That is correct.

SCHIFF: And what did Dr. Eastman want you to do?

BOWERS: That we should re-certify the electors because we had the authority to do so. I don’t recall him saying sufficient evidence, but there was strong reason to do that.  I said again, I took an oath and to do that would be counter to my oath.  He said, my suggestion would be to just do it and let the courts figure it all out. I declined.

SCHIFF: And you told Dr. Eastman you did not believe there was legal support to justify what he was asking, but he still wanted you to do it, effectively let the courts work it out?

BOWERS: I said you should know there’s no way that could happen.

SCHIFF: In your view what he was asking you to do would have violated your oath to the Constitution of both the united states and the state of Arizona.

BOWERS: Yes, sir.

SCHIFF: We just heard in that video and aide to the White House Chief of Staff telling the Committee that the White House Counsel’s office felt that this fake electors plan was not legally sound. Nevertheless, the Trump campaign went forward with the scheme anyway.  Speaker Bowers, were you aware fake electors had been in Phoenix on December 14th to cast electoral votes for President Trump?

BOWERS: I was not.

SCHIFF: When you learned these electors had met and sent the electoral votes to Washington, what did you think?

BOWERS: Well, I thought of the book, The Gang that Can’t Shoot Straight. I just thought this is, this is a tragic parody.

 

Share your views at facebook/synthisophy!

 

Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?521075-1/fourth-hearing-investigation-capitol-attack&live