Posts tagged ‘Politics’

July 17, 2026

The Covenant Above the Tribe

by Steve Dana

Human beings are tribal by nature.

Read Steve’s work on Substack http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com

That is not an insult. It is an observation. We are born into families, neighborhoods, languages, customs, churches, histories, and loyalties that we did not invent. Long before we learn political theory, we learn who “our people” are. We learn who is safe. We learn who is suspect. We learn who shares our values, our stories, our habits, and our assumptions about the world.

Tribal instinct is not always evil. It can produce loyalty, courage, sacrifice, duty, and love. A man who will not defend his family is not morally superior because he has risen above tribe. He is morally deficient because he has failed the first test of loyalty. The same is true of neighborhoods, churches, communities, and nations. Human beings need belonging.

But the same instinct that binds people together can also turn poisonous. The line between “I love my people” and “your people are in my way” is not as thick as civilized people like to imagine.

That is the problem America has always tried to solve.

Our country was not founded on the fantasy that human beings would stop forming factions. The Founders understood human nature better than most modern political operators do. They knew that individuals and groups would seek advantage. They knew that people would organize around interest, passion, resentment, wealth, religion, region, and identity. They knew that majorities could become oppressive and minorities could become desperate. They knew that power, once acquired, is rarely surrendered gracefully.

That is why America was built not merely as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic. Majority rule matters, but majority rule alone is not justice. A majority can be wrong. A majority can be vengeful. A majority can violate the rights of the minority. A majority can turn government into an instrument of punishment. A majority can convince itself that because it has the votes, it also has moral permission to do whatever it wants.

The Founders knew better.

The purpose of the American covenant was to place something higher than tribe, faction, party, race, religion, class, and temporary political victory. That higher thing was the idea that all citizens stand under the same Constitution, possess rights that government did not create, and owe allegiance to a common civic order. The American bargain was not that every person would be the same. It was not that ancestry, culture, religion, and family history would disappear. The bargain was that those identities would be subordinated to citizenship.

That is a demanding idea.

It asks human beings to do something they do not naturally do. It asks them to restrain their own tribe when their tribe has power. It asks them to protect the rights of people they do not like. It asks them to honor the law even when the law benefits their opponent. It asks them to accept election results they did not want. It asks them to teach their children that liberty is not merely personal freedom, but ordered freedom under a shared moral and constitutional discipline.

That is America at its best.

But America at its worst is what happens when the covenant weakens and the tribes take over.

Political partisans understand this better than they admit. When they are in the majority, they speak the language of mandate, democracy, progress, justice, and the will of the people. When they are in the minority, they speak the language of rights, restraint, fairness, oppression, and abuse of power. The same people who celebrate majority power when it serves them often discover constitutional limits the moment power changes hands.

That is not unique to one party. It is not unique to American politics. It is human nature.

The group in power wants to use power. The group out of power wants to limit power. The majority says, “We won.” The minority says, “You are going too far.” When the tables turn, the speeches change, but the instinct remains.

This is why the struggle between majority and minority power must never be dismissed as merely academic. It is the living tension at the center of every government. In neighborhoods, gangs, legislatures, school boards, city councils, churches, nations, and civilizations, the side with power sets the terms. The side without power looks for ways to survive, resist, organize, and eventually replace the ruling coalition.

That is the nature of power.

The danger becomes greater in a multicultural society, because people do not organize only around policy. They organize around identity, memory, grievance, and fear. A group that cannot form a majority on its own may join with other groups that share little except a common opponent. These coalitions can be powerful. They can also be fragile, cynical, and dangerous.

A coalition built around shared principles can strengthen a republic.

A coalition built around shared resentment can destroy one.

This is where America’s modern challenge becomes so serious. We often talk as if our racial and cultural divisions are unique to us. They are not. Tribal conflict is one of the oldest facts of human history.

The world is full of examples. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Indonesian peoples may all be called “Asian” from a distance, but they are not interchangeable peoples with one shared memory. Many carry histories of conquest, occupation, contempt, humiliation, and war. In the Middle East, Sunni and Shiite Muslims have fought for centuries over faith, legitimacy, power, and blood. In Europe, Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God, nation, crown, and doctrine. Jews have been persecuted across civilizations by people who claimed moral and religious authority. In Africa, tribal and ethnic conflicts have often produced cruelty that outsiders barely understand. Around the world, majorities have used power against minorities, and minorities have dreamed of the day when power would shift.

America did not invent tribal conflict.

America’s claim was that it had found a way to rise above it.

Not perfectly. Not always. Not without hypocrisy. Not without sin. Not without slavery, discrimination, exclusion, injustice, and failure. But the claim still mattered. The American idea said there was a standard above tribe by which even America itself could be judged. That is why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain so powerful. They did not merely describe what America already was. They declared what America was obligated to become.

That obligation is the covenant.

A covenant is more than a contract. A contract says, “I will do this if you do that.” A covenant says, “We are bound together by something higher than immediate advantage.” The American covenant says that we are not merely competing tribes living under one flag. We are citizens of one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Those words are easy to recite. They are hard to live.

They require the old majority to understand that historic dominance does not grant permanent ownership of the country. They require rising minorities to understand that past mistreatment does not justify future revenge. They require immigrants to understand that coming to America means more than gaining access to jobs, schools, benefits, safety, and opportunity. It means entering a civic inheritance that demands loyalty, gratitude, duty, and participation. They require native-born citizens to understand that citizenship is not automatic virtue. A person can be born here and still despise the covenant. A person can come from somewhere else and embrace it with reverence.

That last point matters.

This argument is not a defense of bloodline America. It is a defense of covenant America.

A Hispanic citizen who loves the Constitution is more American in spirit than a white citizen who hates it. A black pastor who teaches family, duty, faith, and ordered liberty is more faithful to the American covenant than a wealthy elite who funds contempt for the country while enjoying every benefit it provides. An immigrant who comes here determined to become an American is a blessing to the nation. A native-born citizen who teaches children that America is nothing more than oppression is a danger to the nation.

The dividing line cannot simply be race, ethnicity, birthplace, or ancestry.

The dividing line must be allegiance.

Do you believe in the American covenant or not?

That is the central question.

For much of our history, immigrants came to America with a clear understanding. They came from places where opportunity was limited, governments were corrupt, religious liberty was fragile, class barriers were hard, poverty was inherited, and political power belonged to someone else. America was not perfect, but it offered something rare: a chance.

The older immigrant bargain was simple: come here, work hard, become American, and your children can rise.

Those immigrants did not always abandon their food, language, churches, customs, or family traditions. Nor should they have been expected to. But the public expectation was clear. Heritage was permitted. Citizenship was primary. The hyphen might describe ancestry, but it was not supposed to outrank America.

Something changed.

Over the last several decades, the older language of assimilation weakened. The melting pot gave way to a different model, one that often placed ethnic identity, grievance, and ancestral recovery at the center of public life. America’s institutions became less confident in teaching newcomers why becoming American was an honor. At the same time, our schools, universities, media, and political movements increasingly taught native-born children to view their country not as a flawed but noble inheritance, but as a source of shame.

That has consequences.

The first-generation immigrant often compares America to the country he left. He remembers the corruption, poverty, fear, violence, limitation, or hopelessness. He is grateful. He works. He sacrifices. He tells his children that America gave the family a future.

The second-generation child may compare America not to the country his parents escaped, but to an abstract moral ideal presented in a classroom. He may be taught that America’s failures define it more than its achievements. He may inherit the fruits of assimilation while being taught to despise the tree that bore them.

That is a civic tragedy.

It is also politically useful.

A grateful citizen is hard to manipulate. A resentful identity group is easier to organize. Political operatives understand this. They know how to cultivate suspicion between groups. They know how to turn history into grievance and grievance into turnout. They know that several minority groups with little in common can be assembled into a majority if they can be persuaded to oppose the same enemy. They know that people who might not share values can still share resentment.

That is not nation-building.  That is faction-building.

And faction-building is not enough to sustain a republic.

A republic requires citizens who can say, “My group may benefit from this policy, but it is still wrong.” It requires citizens who can say, “My party has the votes, but the Constitution still restrains us.” It requires citizens who can say, “My ancestors suffered, but I am not entitled to punish my neighbors for sins they did not commit.” It requires citizens who can say, “My family came from another country, but my loyalty now belongs here.” It requires citizens who can say, “My country has failed, but I still love it enough to repair it rather than curse it.”

Love of country is not blindness.

Patriotism does not require pretending America has never done wrong. In fact, real patriotism requires the courage to tell the truth about national failures. But there is a difference between correction and contempt. There is a difference between loving your country enough to improve it and hating your country enough to dismantle it.

A child who is taught only America’s sins will not inherit America’s virtues.

A newcomer who is welcomed into benefits but not into the covenant will not necessarily become a citizen in the moral sense.

A political party that treats people as demographic inventory will not build national unity.

A majority that uses power for revenge will teach the next minority to seek revenge when its turn comes.

That is the cycle we must break.

The answer is not for one tribe to defeat all the others. That would merely prove the danger. If the old majority seeks only restoration of dominance, it has misunderstood America. If rising minorities seek only payback, they have also misunderstood America. If immigrants come only for material benefit without allegiance, they have misunderstood America. If native-born citizens inherit liberty without duty, they have misunderstood America.

America cannot survive as a spoils system among competing tribes.

It can only survive as a covenant people.

That means we must recover a language of citizenship that is firmer, clearer, and more honest than the language we use now. We should not be afraid to say that immigration requires assimilation. Not cultural erasure, but civic assimilation. We should not be afraid to say that English matters, common history matters, constitutional literacy matters, public order matters, borders matter, voting matters, military and civic service matter, and gratitude matters.

We should not be afraid to say that rights come with duties.

We should not be afraid to say that America is worth loving.

That may be the most radical statement left in public life: America is worth loving.

Not because she is flawless. She is not.

Not because every generation has lived up to her promises. It has not.

Not because every leader has been honorable. Many have not been.

America is worth loving because the covenant is worth preserving. A nation founded on the claim that rights come from God, that government exists by consent, that citizens are equal before the law, that speech and worship are free, that power must be limited, and that justice belongs to all is a nation with a moral architecture rare in human history.

If we lose that, we will not replace it with utopia.

We will replace it with tribes.

And tribes know what to do with power.

This brings us back to the practical lesson: the people who show up get to have their way.

A constitutional majority will not appear by magic. A civic majority must be formed, taught, organized, and mobilized. People who believe in the American covenant must stop assuming that their values will govern automatically because they are decent, quiet, hardworking, and normal. Quiet people are not in charge. Organized people are.

The future is being shaped in school board meetings, city council chambers, county offices, state legislatures, curriculum committees, party caucuses, churches, neighborhood groups, and primary elections. The people who attend those meetings, ask questions, run for seats, fund candidates, teach children, write arguments, and build institutions are the people who steer the country.

Absence is surrender.

If citizens who love America stay home, citizens who want to transform America will not pause out of courtesy. They will govern. They will write curriculum. They will staff agencies. They will nominate candidates. They will interpret laws. They will shape language. They will define justice. They will decide what children are taught to love and what they are taught to hate.

That is not a complaint. It is a reality.

In a republic, power goes to those who participate.

So the call is not merely to resentment. Resentment is easy. The call is to responsibility.

If we believe America is a covenant, we must teach the covenant.

If we believe citizenship matters, we must practice citizenship.

If we believe immigrants should become Americans, we must be confident enough to tell them what that means.

If we believe our children should love their country, we must give them reasons to love it.

If we believe power must be restrained, we must restrain our own side when our own side wins.

If we believe liberty and justice are for all, we must defend them even for people outside our tribe.

That is the hard patriotism America requires now.

The temptation of the age is to retreat into tribe. Every group can justify doing so. Every group has wounds. Every group has fears. Every group can tell stories of mistreatment. Every group can point to another group and say, “They would do it to us if they had the chance.”

Maybe they would.

That is precisely why the covenant matters.

The covenant is not needed because human beings are naturally fair. It is needed because we are not. It is not needed because majorities are always wise. It is needed because they are not. It is not needed because minorities are always noble. It is needed because they are human too. It is not needed because power corrupts only our enemies. It is needed because power tempts everyone.

America’s survival depends on whether enough of us still believe there is something higher than winning.

Higher than party.

Higher than race.

Higher than ancestry.

Higher than grievance.

Higher than revenge.

Higher than the temporary satisfaction of seeing our opponents humiliated.

That higher thing is the American covenant.

One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Not one tribe over another.

Not one faction above the law.

Not one coalition entitled to rule forever.

Not one grievance given permission to become tyranny.

One nation.

That is the promise.

That is the duty.

That is the inheritance.

And if we want to keep it, we had better start acting like citizens again.

March 23, 2026

AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS

by Steve Dana

CHRISTIAN, NOT A QUAKER

American Culture Was Overwhelmingly Christian

The colonies were populated primarily by people shaped by various Christian traditions:

  • Congregationalists (New England)
  • Anglicans (Virginia, the South)
  • Quakers (Pennsylvania)
  • Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc.

The founders largely assumed the population would remain culturally Christian.  They did not envision: A religious vacuum or a fully secular society as we understand it today.  They assumed a religiously informed moral culture, even if they disagreed on doctrine.

The Real Conflict Was Among Christian Denominations.  The issue wasn’t:  “Should we be Christian or something else?”  It was:  “Which version of Christianity gets to be in charge?”

Different colonies had already experienced:

  • State-supported churches
  • Religious favoritism
  • Discrimination against dissenters

So the founders had seen firsthand what happens when:  government hooked up with a specific denomination created conflict.

It Wasn’t “Judeo vs Christian”.  The founders were not choosing between Judaism and Christianity.  Instead, they were operating in a world influenced by:  Biblical tradition (Old + New Testament), Natural law philosophy, Enlightenment thought.

When we say “Judeo-Christian values” today, we’re using a modern label.  They wouldn’t have framed it that way.

In spite of their largely Christian representation, they did not assume only Christianity would exist.  Some founders—especially James Madison and Thomas Jefferson explicitly supported religious pluralism and protection for minority faiths.

Even at the time, America included Jews, Deists, Catholics(often distrusted) and Non-religious thinkers.  So the idea wasn’t “Everyone will be Christian forever”. It was closer to “Government should not control religion and Religion should not control government.”

What “No State Religion” Really Meant.

The First Amendment does two things:

1.         No establishment  → The government cannot create or favor a national church

2.         Free exercise  → Individuals can practice their faith freely

This was a structural decision, not just a theological one.

The founders believed: Faith is stronger when it is chosen—not enforced. 

Even though they rejected a state religion, the founders still believed religion (especially Christianity) would continue to shape character, behavior and public virtue.  In other words, they separated church and state… but not morality and society.

That’s a powerful distinction.

The founders built a system that depends on a moral culture… while refusing to enforce that culture through government.

That creates a built-in tension: 

  • If the culture remains strong → freedom works
  • If the culture weakens → the system strains

The problem is, the culture doesn’t always remain strong; didn’t remain strong.

A Sharper Way to Say It

Instead of saying: “They assumed everyone would be Christian”

I might say: “They rejected a government-enforced religion not because faith didn’t matter—but because they believed faith was too important to be controlled by government. They assumed the moral framework shaped by Christianity would continue to live in the people, not in the state.”

That’s historically stronger—and rhetorically more effective.

Assuming the founders’ expectations about culture can simply be restored by argument alone.  They lived in a time where religion was embedded in daily life, communities reinforced shared norms and Institutions aligned with moral teaching.

Today’s environment is very different, so the challenge isn’t just “Return to what they believed”, it’s “How do you sustain a moral culture without state enforcement in a pluralistic society?”

That’s the modern problem.

The founders were dealing primarily with conflicts among Christian denominations.  They rejected a state religion to avoid coercion and conflict.  They still assumed a shared moral culture shaped by religion. They did not intend government to enforce belief.  The system depends on internal virtue, not external force.

PART 2.0

A LARGELY CHRISTIAN COUNTRY DEALS WITH CONFLICTING CULTURE – ISLAM

Now comes the introduction of large numbers of Muslim immigrants.  Not one at a time.  Not in a way that naturally blends into an existing culture.  But in numbers large enough to stand apart.  And that matters.  Because this is not happening in the America the founders knew.  It is happening in an America that is already struggling to remember who it is.

For generations, this country was shaped—quietly, imperfectly, but unmistakably—by a Christian moral framework. It lived in our homes, our schools, our communities. It wasn’t enforced by government, but it was reinforced by culture.

That framework is fading.  And as it fades, something else is happening at the same time.  We are importing people from cultures that do not share the same assumptions about freedom, law, and the role of religion in public life—while, at the same time, loosening any expectation that they should adopt ours.  That is not diversity.  That is drift.  And drift, left unchecked, becomes division.

Now layer on a harder truth.  This did not happen by accident.

Policy decisions—made by leaders entrusted with protecting the integrity of the nation—have allowed hundreds of thousands of people to enter this country with minimal vetting. Not just criminal vetting. Cultural vetting. Civic vetting. The kind of vetting that asks a simple question:  Are you coming here to become part of this system… or to live apart from it?

That question has not been asked often enough.  And when it isn’t asked, it gets answered anyway—just not on our terms.  Let’s be clear about something.  Many immigrants come here for the right reasons. They want freedom. Opportunity. Stability. They work hard. They contribute. They assimilate.  They strengthen the country.  But immigration at scale is not defined by its best examples.  It is defined by its overall impact.

Islam, in many parts of the world, is not just a religion—it is a governing structure. In some interpretations, it does not separate faith from law. In some expressions, it does not recognize the authority of a secular state over religious obligation.

And in its most extreme form, it has declared open hostility toward the very freedoms that define this country.  That doesn’t describe everyone.  But it doesn’t have to.  When large groups settle together, they don’t have to change. They can sustain themselves. Reinforce themselves. Teach the next generation not how to become American—but how to remain something else.

That is where the tension begins.  Because the American system does not run on laws alone.  It runs on agreement.

  • Agreement about what freedom means.
  • Agreement about what the law requires.
  • Agreement that no one stands above it.

If that agreement weakens, the system strains.  If it breaks, the system fails.

So what do we do?  We can demand assimilation—not the abandonment of faith, but the acceptance of a civic framework where the Constitution is the final authority.  We can continue pretending that all cultures will naturally align over time.  Or we can talk about more drastic measures—like deportation.

But deportation is not a slogan. It is a reality with consequences. Who decides? Based on what standard? And how do we enforce it without tearing at the very liberties we claim to defend?

There are no easy answers.  But there is a hard truth.  A nation that no longer teaches its own values cannot expect newcomers to adopt them.  And a country that loses confidence in its identity will not be saved by policy alone.  Because in the end, the greatest threat may not be what is coming across the border.  It may be what is quietly disappearing within it.  And that… is a problem no law can fix.

February 21, 2026

Who Will have the Ear of the Next Republican Nominee?

by Steve Dana

There is a presidential election coming in 2028.

You may think that sounds premature. It isn’t.

The race doesn’t begin when candidates announce. It begins when alliances form, when donors make quiet commitments, and when organizations decide who will be lifted up — and who will quietly be squeezed out.

I watched Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak in Munich last week. It was a strong speech. Confident. Clear. Grounded in America’s historic alliance with Western Europe. He looked like a man comfortable on the world stage. A man wanting to prove he belongs on the world stage.

And I found myself asking a larger question.

When Donald Trump leaves the stage, who stands there next — and who stands behind them?

For the first time in a long time, the Republican Party has a deep bench. JD Vance. Marco Rubio. Glenn Youngkin. Vivek Ramaswamy. Each brings talent. Each brings ambition. Each brings potential.

But potential is not the same thing as independence.

Donald Trump disrupted something in 2016. Whatever one thinks of his style, he walked into politics with his own resources and his own agenda. The traditional donor class did not build him. They did not fund him into existence. In many ways, they were left on the outside looking in.

And that sent a message.

For decades, Americans have watched candidates promise reform and then govern with altogether different priorities. Priorities influenced by the financial ecosystem that carried them to power. Large donors write large checks. Large donors expect access. Access brings influence. Influence brings policy.

That pattern is not new. It is woven into modern politics.

Trump challenged that pattern. Not perfectly. Not without resistance. But he challenged it.

The question now is whether that disruption becomes the new normal — or whether it was simply an exception.

Will the Republican Party allow a fully contested primary in 2028? Or will organizations and power brokers quietly consolidate behind one heir apparent before voters have truly weighed their options?

We have seen what happens when parties bypass robust primaries. Voters notice. Voters resent it. And often, voters respond.

I like JD Vance. I respect Marco Rubio. I admire Glenn Youngkin’s record in Virginia. Vivek Ramaswamy has undeniable energy. But admiration is not the issue.

The issue is allegiance.

If America First was more than a slogan — if it was a governing philosophy — then who carries it forward? And can they carry it forward without becoming indebted to the very structures that resisted it?

Because here is what many Americans understand instinctively: money in politics is never neutral.

Campaigns are expensive. Media is expensive. National organization is expensive. Unless a candidate arrives with extraordinary personal wealth, they must raise funds. And when funds are raised, relationships are formed. When relationships are formed, expectations follow.

That is not cynicism. That is reality.

For years, many of us have spoken about what is often called the “deep state” — the permanent bureaucracy, the consultant class, the professional political operatives who remain while elected officials come and go. Those structures do not disappear. They adapt. They wait.

And they prefer predictability.

Disruptors are tolerated only temporarily. Systems prefer stability. Systems prefer familiarity. Systems prefer candidates who understand how things are “supposed” to work.

So I ask again:

When Donald Trump exits the stage, does the system quietly reset?

Will the next president be chosen by voters — or shaped long before by donors, consultants, and institutional power?

These are not accusations. They are questions. And they are questions worth asking early.

The 2028 election will not simply be about personality. It will not simply be about messaging. It will be about whether the political and financial architecture that defined Washington for decades reasserts itself fully.

If the Republican Party believes in competition, then let there be competition. Let the candidates debate. Let them challenge each other. Let them prove not only their talent, but their independence.

Because voters are not naïve.

They know that campaign money flows somewhere. They know that influence follows money. And they know that governing courage is rare.

Donald Trump was, in many ways, an anomaly. The exception. The disruption.

The next election will tell us whether that disruption changed the system — or whether the system was merely waiting its turn.

Who will lead?

More importantly — who will own the leader?

Answering that question begins now.

November 9, 2025

When Righteousness Becomes Violence

by Steve Dana

Lessons from Mao’s Cultural Revolution

Tell me if this sounds familiar. At the height of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, China’s universities stopped being places of learning. They became factories of ideological conformity.

Teachers and administrators who didn’t embrace the Communist revolution were branded “rightists.” Students were told to find them, expose them, and punish them. Many obeyed with religious zeal, convinced that loyalty to Mao outweighed every other moral duty.

The Rise of the Red Guards

From this fanaticism emerged the Red Guards — militant bands of teenagers unleashed upon society. With Mao’s blessing, they stormed through cities and villages declaring themselves defenders of revolutionary purity.

They tore down monuments, burned books, and desecrated temples. Teachers were beaten. Children informed on their parents. Neighbors became accusers and victims all at once. It wasn’t random chaos — it was the logical outcome of what they’d been taught.

The Redefinition of Morality

Disagreement itself was redefined. To question the Party was not merely to be wrong; it was to be inhuman. And once an idea is labeled inhuman, violence against it becomes not only acceptable, but righteous.

The act of silencing or destroying an opponent was no longer seen as cruelty — it was seen as virtue. The moral compass had been inverted so completely that brutality felt like heroism.

Fear replaced trust. Education gave way to indoctrination. Intellectual independence disappeared under the threat of public denunciation. Families disintegrated as children betrayed parents to prove loyalty to the revolution. By the time it ended, millions were dead, and the cultural memory of a nation lay in ruins.

A Pattern That Echoes Through Time

The lesson is dark, but it echoes through history:
When youth are weaponized by ideology…
When universities teach obedience instead of curiosity…
When disagreement becomes criminal…
Violence stops being taboo. It becomes justice.

Mao understood something terrifying: it’s easier to control a society by igniting passion from below than by enforcing power from above. Once the young believe their violence is virtuous, the revolution will devour its own.

What We Must Remember

The Cultural Revolution warns us what happens when certainty replaces curiosity and purity tests replace reasoned debate. The worst atrocities are not committed by those who know they are evil — but by those convinced they are righteous.

A Call to Vigilance

We must stay vigilant. Defend the spaces where disagreement is possible. Protect the right to question without fear. Resist the seductive clarity of ideologies that divide the world into saints and sinners.

Teach the next generation to think — not to march. To question their own certainty. To see even their enemies as human beings worthy of dignity.

History’s graves are filled with people who thought their cause justified cruelty. The question for our time is simple: Will we have the wisdom and courage to stop it before it consumes us?

I wrote the commentary on this document, but I didn’t write the original message at the top. I don’t know who did but thought it was important to share with my thoughts added.