Human nature tells us that everyone experiences anger, to some degree or level. What needs to be understood are the triggering and venting mechanisms and how those factors play into today’s politics.

We are told that the current rise of Donald Trump is the result of the classic: “Angry White Male syndrome.”

But that is individual anger. Mob or group anger is an entirely different matter. How one views the triggering or venting of anger is dependent upon the degree to which one either sympathizes with the causation or the plight of those angered.

In 2011 when the Occupy Wall Street crowds were rioting, defecating on police cars and attacking women, some “progressives” — including Nancy Pelosi — found admiration in the protestors:

“God bless them, for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective,” Pelosi reportedly said.

Recently, the anger of American blacks has channeled into “Black Lives Matter.” Lost, of course, is that the triggering mechanism, the death of Michael “The Gentle Giant” Brown, is based on the proven falsehood of “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

Compare these reactions to the response to the Tea Party. To the left, the controlled and appropriately channeled anger of this group is a source of ridicule, vexation and regarded as wholly unacceptable. It is not uncommon to see references to the Tea Party in harsh and militaristic terms. Case in point; the New York Times: “The stormy aftermath of Mississippi’s Republican Senate runoff has sent Tea Party conservatives around the country to the ramparts, raising the prospect of a prolonged battle that holds the potential to depress conservative turnout in November in Mississippi — and possibly beyond.”

Today the anger of the electorate, including honest liberals (yes, a few actually exist) has manifested into the rise of non-establishment candidates.

Donald Trump has channeled this anger into his (so far) successful run for the GOP nomination. The GOP establishment has failed to consider the advice of Confucius; “When anger rises, think of the consequences.”

Thus the well-justified anger has prevailed over the impotence of the “Never Trump” crowd.

Following is a shortened list of contributory factors of the once simmering, now boiling, anger:

• We thought that the Democrats supported African Americans and worked for their benefit, until we saw the “High Tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas.

• We were told that the Clinton administration would be the most “ethical in history,” but that was before: Travelgate, cattle futures, FBI filegate, bimbogate, Hillarycare, Whitewater, John Huang, Lincoln Bedroom, etc.

• We were told Hillary was a champion of women’s rights, but we then learned of: Eileen Wellstone, Juanita Broaddrick, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward, Paula Corbin, Christy Zwercher, Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones, etc.

• We believed that it was illegal to raise money from the White House, then Vice President Gore taught us that there was “No controlling legal authority.”

• They said they wanted every vote to count. Why then did they conspire to throw out the military ballots?

• We listened to President Bush’s stirring speech on the USS Lincoln: “Our mission continues. al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed.” This was turned into a source of ridicule as “Mission Accomplished” was ensconced into the lexicon of the left.

• We heard candidate Obama call his predecessor “irresponsible and unpatriotic” for increasing the national debt, but that was before President Obama added $8 trillion (and counting) to that debt.

• Many believed candidate Obama when he told the Rev. Rick Warren that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Then we saw the White House bathed in celebratory rainbow colors.

• The nation thought they elected a black president who would heal racial animus. Why were we then called racist for opposing his policies?

• They told us that guns were a danger and automatic weapons were the ultimate evil. They said this as they supplied more than 2,000 guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

• We heard Joe Wilson declare “you lie!” to the president during his State of the Union address, and Wilson was severely rebuked in the media. Yet the words were more prescient than rude.

• President Obama on national TV declared that Obamacare “is absolutely not a tax increase.” The Supreme Court’s ruling indicated otherwise. We then saw the president celebrate his “victory.”

• John Gruber was caught on video discussing Obamacare: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter …” And now everyone learned that was the plan all along: To deceive the “stupid” American voter.

• We remember that Hillary wrote Article Two of the Nixon Impeachment, including: “Endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service … confidential information contained in income tax returns.” We then saw Lois Lerner plead the fifth to avoid prosecution for using the IRS for crass political gains.

• We heard Hillary and others declare: “It was the video.” When the truth was revealed, they blamed the Republicans for cutting their budget.

• We heard the president declare that Iraq was a stable state, our soldiers had attained success. We then saw Christians crucified, burned alive, beheaded and otherwise killed by the “JV” team.

Given the above transgressions, one can respond in several ways: Those who support Hillary will challenge the facts as being incomplete or not telling the whole story. Taken collectively, they represent daunting evidence against Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular.

If one rationally considers the behavior above the choices are basic:

• Acceptance. “There is nothing that can be done” would be their unacceptable cry of defeat. In reality, does anyone wish to survive under a Vichy regime where those ostensibly in charge capitulate to controlling evil?

• Resistance: Those actively supporting Trump or Sanders, have made this their choice. They wish to fight against the corruption of the establishment, while simultaneously rejecting the quislings.

Those tottering between Hillary and Trump have a decision to make: The devil you know or the one you don’t. Do you prostrate before the altar of the never changing government power structure, or do you risk the unknown?

The only recourse allowed for abuse by the Chief Executive is impeachment, which is not, nor never has been, a true “legal” process. Instead, impeachment is the ultimate end game of presidential politics. Nixon was impeachable, not as much for his “crimes,” but because of the abject hate the left had for him.

We all acknowledge that the current president is unimpeachable. We must also recognize that Hillary would have a similar immunity, if elected.

It is difficult to imagine what we would endure under a President Rodham Clinton, one confident enough to believe she can get away with anything. Considering her history, who would challenge that belief?

As for me, I am willing to risk the devil I don’t know rather than the one we have seen for far too many years.

— Dennis Lund/Benicia