Americans Need a Civics Class

Sometimes I think that much of the animosity between voters supporting differing parties comes down to a lack of understanding of how our government works. 

I was reminded of this earlier this week in an exchange with a person whose views differ from mine.  The exchange began following the announcement by one of my senators, a Democrat, that he would vote against the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch for Supreme Court.  After noting that his reasons (the Russian investigation) were merely justifications for the no vote he had always planned to cast and that his vote was simply his knee-jerk assertion of the party line, I commented that Gorsuch was one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated for the position. 

I of course realize this is my opinion and some could and do disagree with that position; I have no problem with that disagreement if it is based on an understanding of the duties of a judge and a realistic examination of Gorsuch’s record.  However, the response to my comment from a Democrat was to take issue with my comment that Gorsuch was “one of the most qualified”:  the individual asserted that because an opinion he wrote was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, it followed that Gorsuch was “not qualified.”

That simply shows that individual’s total ignorance of:  how the federal court system works; what the job of a federal appellate judge is; the role of precedent in a judge’s decision making; the fact that there is more than one federal appeals circuit and that sometimes these circuits are split on an issue; that federal appellate judges must follow the precedent in their circuit; that when there is a circuit split it is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to take up the issue and when it resolves the circuit split it is in essence disagreeing with or overturning the circuits with which its decision does not agree; that such resolution (and effective disagreement with one side of the split) does not mean that judges who sat within the disagreed with circuit and followed precedent there were necessarily wrong or unqualified as judges; that the disagreed with judge may very well have been properly executing his or her responsibility to follow precedent within the circuit.  Moreover, while the opinion that the individual in my exchange referred to was unanimous, many Supreme Court decisions are not; using that individual’s logic, all the judges in the minority in a non-unanimous decision would be unqualified.  That is certainly not the case.

These are things that I learned in an 8^th grade civics class in public school.  Sadly, that was many years ago; such classes don’t exist today.  So, the lack of understanding of how the courts or the rest of our government work leads people to make idiotic statements that they believe to be true, not because they are idiots but because they have never learned the basics of our government.  I suspect that the individual in my exchange assumed that because the opinion Gorsuch wrote was overturned that meant that Gorsuch was wrong and therefore unqualified.  That reasoning shows nothing more than a total lack of understanding of our judicial system.

Our conversation ended with that individual’s comment that Gorsuch was not qualified.  I saw no point in continuing when it was clear that before we could have a further or productive conversation the conversant would need a course in the basics of our court system.  I suspect, however, that similar conversations around the country devolve into shouting matches where one person or group is yelling “Yes, qualified” and the other is yelling “No, not qualified” with neither side understanding what are the qualifications for a good judge.  This is not the discussion needed in this country.

We see people counting up how many times Judge Gorsuch’s opinions have found for or against a position or type of entity that they either like or dislike, demonstrating their total lack of understanding that a judge must follow the law, even if that judge does not like the result to which that law leads.   That is why a judge’s personal position on an issue is not really relevant to his or her abilities as a judge.  A civics class would have made it clear that it is the legislative branch of government that makes the law; the judges interpret and apply the existing law while the executive branch enforces it. 

Without these basic understandings about our government, it makes sense that many people become (unjustifiably) angry when they think that one branch of government or someone within that branch is not performing as they should.  But, often, they are performing just fine; it’s just that the critic doesn’t understand what the role is and expects something different than what is actually not only expected but also required of the position.  What is especially troubling is the lack of understanding of the interaction between the three branches and the fact that any one branch is not in absolute control; indeed, the three branches create the checks and balances so essential to our democracy.    

There is a necessary balancing always involved in the governance of this nation and that balancing also requires compromise.  So, the person yelling “Yes” or the person yelling “No” needs to understand that these absolutes in and of themselves are not the way to resolve issues.  Rather what is required is a depth of understanding and an examination of all aspects of the issue and how the issue and its ramifications fit into our form of democracy.  That is how we can stop the yelling.  And, that understanding must begin with an understanding of the basics of how our form of government works – the lessons that one would learn in a proper civics class.

Let's Try the Art of Compromise

Let's stop keeping score.

We have so much finger pointing going on over healthcare – who won, who lost?  We have a planned filibuster against one of the most qualified individuals ever to be nominated for Supreme Court Justice because the Democrats want to win or see the Republicans (or Trump) lose.  News stories involving politics so frequently begin with a suggestion that one party or coalition or another won, or another lost.  It really sounds far too much like the sports report rather than news.  It is really well past time to put a stop to this.

I was going to say, “If I were President Trump here’s what I’d do.”  But, if I were Trump I’d do exactly what he is doing.  So, how about instead, "If I could tell President Trump what to do, here is what I’d say":

First, there is too much team playing going on all over Washington.  I know, anyone who doesn’t know that has been living under a rock for the last several years. But it has become almost exclusively about the game and the score – who won, who lost – and not about what is being done for the country.  And this game playing is truly hampering if not putting a complete halt to getting anything at all done for America.

So, here’s what needs to happen.  Instead of having the Republicans put forth a bill on this or that, and then have the Democrats have a knee-jerk opposition reaction, why not at least try to get them to work together.  Bring the leaders of both sides to a meeting at the White House together.  But them in a room TOGETHER and ask them to talk about the issue that you want to work on:  health care; taxes; infrastructure; regulations; terrorism; government waste; etc.  Listen to thoughts from both sides.  Ask questions.  Demand that they talk to one another.  Tell them the bill that you will sign must come out of and evolve from this meeting – this is its starting point.  It will include the best ideas, regardless of who it was that proposed them. 

Idealistic?  Perhaps.  But, imagine if it worked.  You’d have support for the bill coming from both sides of the aisle.  You’d have people on both sides trying to sell the bill to their constituents.  Because the bill would be bipartisan you would not have each and every Democrat vote against the bill.  You also would likely not have all Republicans vote for the bill, but that is actually not a bad thing.  It would indicate that the Congresspeople are thinking about what is best for America and their constituents, rather than just a win for their party.  Maybe the people would begin to feel that the politicians could see their job as other than a game in which they and their team try to win at all costs; maybe the politicians would begin to see that their job is not about them but what is best for the country and the American people. 

And, with such a change in perspective we would all win.  This ought not to hurt the individual politicians’ careers or chances in future elections: if they are truly serving the people well, it follows that the people will want to retain their services.  The country would win because we would likely have less animosity and certainly more actions supporting the greatness that is America.  And, the Presidency would win because things would be accomplished, and the things accomplished would likely last because of the underlying bipartisan support.

So, how to get it there?  This would likely not work well in the beginning.  The first few group meetings would doubtless be very difficult with a lot of political posturing, name-calling, and refusal.   Let them get it out of their systems.  Make them stay.  Ask them why they cannot accept the point they are opposing.  Ask them how they could reach a compromise.  Don’t give up.  And, if anyone refuses to cooperate in this exercise, hold their feet to the fire.  Tell the press.  Or, let the press in; record the meetings and share them with the public. 

There will of course be certain things on which the two parties’ ideological positions are so different that they will never agree.  But, there are many other things on which we have to believe that there is great room for compromise so that both sides (and their constituents) can feel that they leave the table having won something.   Work on the art of compromise; be its leader and make it as successful as the art of the deal.

In the end, the most important point to which all must hold true is that this is not about a particular side, or team, or party, or coalition winning or losing; this is about America winning or losing.  And, as long as we continue keeping score for Democrats vs. Republicans, America is losing.

About Government Healthcare Bills

The AHCA -the bill to repeal and replace Obama care.

Let’s face it, it really was a bad bill.  It seemed to have been thrown together by Ryan and other House Republicans so as to quickly present a bill, but it seemed to have lacked any clear thought about what they were doing or what they wanted to accomplish. 

So, what is the result?  First, the Democrats are full of glee.  They can point to a big FAIL by the Trump administration and by the Republicans.  While they may be right, this reaction is equally a fail.  That is, it shows that their primary motive is to win, or to see the Republicans lose, not to consider or work for what might be best for the American people.

I am not a doctor or a politician, but this whole ordeal suggests two things to me.

First, there is never going to be a good Health Care Bill.  We have seen the many problems with Obamacare, which is really a method of insurance or payment for health services rather than it is about actual quality of health care.  We have seen the problem with trying to craft a replacement.  Perhaps the problem is that the federal government should not be crafting such a bill at all.  That is, there is never going to be a one size fits all health care program.  As such, those congress people who are responsive to their constituents will see different needs in any bill and will always have difficulty reaching agreement. We have Medicaid and other safety nets for those who need them; perhaps that should be the end of the government’s involvement in individual health care.  Leave it to the people rather than the government to decide what they and their families need as far as health and health insurance.

Second, there are things that Congress could do to make such individual choices easier and more available.  For example, they could make it possible for health insurers to offer policies across state lines.  They could make it easier for insurers to be competitive with one another and hence more responsive to the demands of individuals seeking insurance.  Perhaps, instead of trying to create some sort of health care or insurance mandate, Congress could simply lift some of the regulations or modify them so as to allow a competitive marketplace that would allow individuals to create and then satisfy the demands of a healthcare marketplace. Congress could also limit its focus on the actual provision of health care to those safety nets that are or may be necessary for those who cannot participate in such a market place.

But, since we sadly have come to the point where we seem to think that it is the government’s responsibility to provide everyone with healthcare, then let me suggest a better way to go about this, should the Republicans decide to retry.  Abolish Obamacare effective 3 years from the date of the passage of the bill for repeal (or a similar time span deemed reasonable).  That’s it – nothing else in that bill.  Then, rather than trying to tinker and fix this or that in the 1000 pages that are Obamacare, start over from scratch.  Focus on health care, not what form of insurance will pay for it.  What health care is it up to the government to provide or mandate, and how can that best be delivered?  Or, focus on the insurance industry and the regulatory structure surrounding it, and consider how it can be improved so that individuals can use it to obtain the healthcare they need outside of government interference in the actual health care.  Use the 3 years to the repeal deadline to understand what is necessary, what the goal is, and how best to achieve it, and write a bill that is responsive to that understanding and to the needs of the people.

Again, I am not an expert on medicine or healthcare.  But I do know that Obamacare turned out to be a disaster in the way that larger government programs have a way of taking away individual freedoms and decisions and ultimately not being very effective while being very expensive for taxpayers.  We sadly have come to look to big government to solve all our problems and provide all our needs.  This is a mistake and a threat not only to our individuality but to our form of democracy.  And, we are seeing the additional negative effect of turning things over to a centralized big, politically motivated government as we look at the fight over both Obamacare and the failed Republican replacement bill: politicians on both sides less concerned with the people than with their own power and the idea of winning at any cost and glee when they do, despite the devastating effect that win might have on the people who elected them.

So, perhaps Congress will and should take a break from thinking about healthcare and then after some reflection, come back to it with fresh eyes – eyes that reflect the true needs of a democracy and its individuals, eyes that do not see big government as the answer to every want, desire, and need.

Consider Where the Buck Stops and Who Cares

“The buck stops here.”

Doesn’t that statement apply to all our presidents?  When a president’s administration takes a particular action, it is the president that is ultimately responsible.  That was as true for the Obama administration as it was for his predecessor administrations and his successor administration. 

So, when we learned yesterday that President Trump’s transition team had been “under surveillance” by the Obama administration and that individual names, including names of  Trump team officials, had been unmasked by the intelligence community serving under then President Obama, it is appropriate to say that then president Obama was ultimately responsible for those acts.  That is, President Obama had Trump’s transition team under surveillance.   Now, while we have no proof of an actual “wiretap” of Mr. Trump by Mr. Obama, it is reasonable to assume that the surveillance of those close to Trump may have included wiretapping and certainly may have, perhaps unintentionally, collected information and conversations of Trump himself.   So, then, it is not really so far-fetched for President Trump to allege that he was wiretapped by Mr. Obama. 

The surveillance may have been done legally.  But that does not change the fact that those not under legal surveillance were incidentally surveilled and then unmasked.  There is evidence that senior officials in the Obama administration may have been involved in the unmasking.  Again, the ultimate responsibility for that unmasking rests with then President Obama.  And, it is not unreasonable to think that Obama himself may have viewed the unmasked information.

And, there was clearly a leaking of that classified information to the press; perhaps there was even collusion with the press to reveal that information.

This is serious business.  We have evidence that the administration of a sitting president was surveilling at a minimum those close to the candidate and then president elect of the opposing party.  We have evidence of unmasking of individual names, including that of the new president's pick for National Security Advisor.  And we know that the information was leaked to the press.

Yet, how do the democrats respond to all this?  First, by picking apart President Trump’s tweet so as to find a way to call him a liar or not credible.  He said Obama wiretapped him – they cry “false.”  Well, technically they may be right – it was the Obama administration (but, remember that phrase, “the buck stops here.”).  They say there was no wiretap.  Well, again, technically they may be right – it was “surveillance,” a broader term than wiretap which might or might not include wiretapping.  But, are their minds not able to grasp the underlying concept here – that a sitting president’s administration (an administration that was highly political) surveilled and unmasked individual names of an opposing party’s candidate team?

That alone should be highly troubling to all Americans, but the democrats instead find a way to turn it into a way to attack the president because his language is not technically precise (because he speaks like a real person).  They attack the fact that the President presented his claim in a tweet.  Now, I happen to think that the tweet was not the best way to present this information, but to make this about the tweet, rather than the serious and troubling surveillance itself just shows how desperate the democrats are to grasp any and everything that they can to attack President Trump.

The democrats attack from many fronts.  In addition to the specific language and media used to make the claim, they imply that it may have been Trump’s own people who did the leaking.  They attack the House Intelligence Chair for providing us with information about the surveillance.  And, they ramp up their allegations of collusion between Trump, his team, and the Russians, even though democrats themselves and members of Obama’s intelligence team have stated with certainty that no evidence of such collusion has been found.

What is clear from the democrats’ response to the troubling information of unmasking of names and leaking of classified information to the press is that they are more concerned with finding ways to attack President Trump than in actually investigating known illegal acts and serious wrongdoing. 

What we should be focusing on is first, the illegal leaks to the press (leaking of classified information is a serious crime!), second, the surveillance of the Trump team and whether any information obtained (either from actual targets or incidentally) was used for political purposes, and thirdly, who unmasked the individual names collected in the surveillance.  We should not be afraid to pursue any of these investigations simply because of where or to whom they might lead.

But, then, the democrats’ failure to face reality and to focus on what is really important should not surprise any of us.  During the campaign, rather than focus on the sometimes damning information in the emails from the hacked DNC, they focused rather on the troubling fact that it was leaked and on finding who did it (or on pushing the narrative that the leakers were the Russians in collusion with Trump).  How ironic that now they are not interested in finding leakers, but only in using leaked information to attack President Trump and his administration. 

I understand that many democrats continue to have trouble accepting the fact that there were enough people who view the world and its priorities differently to successfully elect President Trump.  I also understand that rather than facing this reality and examining it, it is easier to simply attack it – if they can destroy Trump then they will not have to face the reality that he represents.  And what of the people and their concerns and their values, the things that caused the electorate to stand against the democrats and their policies?  I really don’t think the democrats give a damn.  Because, what their actions tell me is that they care only about themselves and their power, not about this country or its people.  

Selfish Hatred

This past weekend I attended a music and dance presentation by a group visiting from Uganda.  It was part of an international theater festival intended to bring together many diverse cultures and underscore our common humanity.  The presentation was wonderful: entertaining and educational.  Between musical numbers, the troupe leader provided a variety of information about his home country – geography, customs and traditions, politics. 

What I want to talk about is not the performance (which really was both fascinating and interesting), but about the audience.   Now, because this was part of a month long festival celebrating diverse cultures whose publicity used all the appropriate buzz-words and phrases of the left (things like “dialog between cultures,” “mutual understanding among people of all cultures,” “empowering change,” “revolutionary theater,” “deeper understanding,” etc.) one could automatically assume that the audience would primarily consist of individuals with a political view that is left-leaning.  That is fine, just as the buzz-words mentioned above reflect lovely ideals and goals.  But this audience left me fairly well disgusted.

I will not focus on their common rudeness that is familiar at most any public performance these days (things like cell phones held up to take photos of the performance that interfere with the observation of those sitting behind, or talking when quietness is expected).  This thoughtlessness and selfishness is predictable in today’s world; it was just ironic to find it so prevalent in a group that seemed to see themselves as so unselfish and highly caring of humanity.

But, here is what truly disgusted me.  At one point the leader of the troupe spoke of the many ugly things in his country’s history and commented that his country looked to America as a beacon of hope, as the symbol of democracy that his people could aspire to for their country.  That was a comment that if anything required a proud thank you from the American audience.  But what it instead elicited was loud calls from the audience of “not any more” and “Trump ended that” and similar hollers. 

I wanted to cry.  Who are these people?  Do they live in the same country as do I?  I am and always have been so proud to be an American.  In the 60s when I loudly protested against the Vietnam war I did it with an equally loud pride in my country and in being an American.   One can dislike some of the actions of one’s country, one can even hate the current leader or others in power, but that does not mean the country is a complete failure worthy of such hatred.  And, why on earth would one express such hatred, such loathing of this country to one who looks to it as a beacon of light?  Why signal that person to turn away instead?

In reflecting on this, I have come to conclude that these are very selfish people, and that they are typical of many of those currently identifying with the left.  These people are so self-absorbed that they cannot imagine that anyone might hold a view different from their own.  They think it is perfectly OK to loudly express their hatred of Trump and of this country because of course everyone must agree.  And they do not really care if they might offend that rare person who does not hold their views.   It is doubtful they would ever truly listen to or try to understand a view different from theirs; they would rather silence such views with their own loud voices.

And the hatred – why so much hatred?  I think because with President Trump these people are faced everyday with the reality that there are indeed others who hold viewpoints different from theirs and this, to them is threatening.  It makes their selfishness less justifiable.  How can they assume that everything they do is OK because everyone thinks just like them when they are faced everyday with the reality that some people think differently, vote differently, hold different values and priorities?  And, it puts them in conflict with themselves:  they believe in the rightness of their self-righteous and selfish behavior, yet that behavior is in direct conflict with the caring and understanding of all of humanity that they profess as one of their central doctrines.  This puts them in an uncomfortable position and, rather than facing it and themselves, it is easier to simply hate the ones who have made them uncomfortable.

So, in the end, it is sad.  And, in the instance that gave rise to these reflections it is especially sad.  These people who were supporting a presentation promoting understanding of all, were behaving in a way that will drive those who do not parrot their views away.  I will think twice about going to any event populated primarily by this sort of group,  just as many people feel they can no longer watch some entertainment shows or shop in certain stores or eat in certain establishments because they are faced with a presentation by the entertainers or sales people or servers that assert views with which they do not agree and which makes them uncomfortable and leave them wondering what this presentation had to do with their reason for being there.  When faced with these unnecessary dialogs, the listener has three choices:  remain present but feel upset and say nothing; respond and likely start an uncomfortable argument; or leave and not return.  Sadly, the behavior of many people who state that they believe we should all come together is to actually drive people away as those suffering the unwanted and unnecessary presentation most commonly select the third choice – leave and not return. 

If, rather than feeling a need to loudly assert their views and their hatred,  these selfish people would instead be quiet and enjoy the human interaction appropriate to the event, they might find that they can simply have a human interaction with all of humankind, regardless of their political views.  They might actually discover that all people out there, even while holding differing views, are worthy not of hatred, but of the human love and understanding which their words currently profess, but which their actions currently belie.

If You Think Trump Equals Totalitarianism You Understand Neither

Pretty regularly these days one sees stories setting forth fears of the totalitarian state under Trump.  Recommendations and sales of the book 1984 continue to excel as if that book is a statement of how the Trump administration is a totalitarian one.

Let us define totalitarianism:  a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state; absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly-centralized institution; of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life; the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority.

Now, in my humble opinion, the above definitions (from sources such as Miriam Webster and dictionary.com) far better describe where we were headed under the previous Democrat administration than it does the Trump administration.  Totalitarianism is the epitome of big government, of a government that believes it knows better than the people themselves how they should run their lives, what they should do, what they should say, what they should think.  Speech codes, prohibitions on what one can say or think, dietary guidelines, required acceptance of a specific set of values – these are all ideas from the Obama administration, not from Trump who wants to return that government overreach to the people themselves.

A strong leader is not necessarily a totalitarian leader.  President Trump may be a strong leader in the sense that he is assertive and does not back down.  But the positions from which he does not retreat are the positions for which the people elected him.  They include such things as returning to the people the power that the previous administration usurped from them – things like the power to hold a variety of beliefs and value systems, the power to make their own decisions about big things like health care and about smaller things like what to put in their child’s lunch box.  He wants to return to the states the powers that are rightfully theirs under the Constitution.  President Trump believes in smaller, not bigger government and in holding such a belief he stands for the opposite of totalitarianism. 

Obama may have been more likable than Trump, but that like or dislike does not equate with totalitarianism or lack thereof.  Indeed, it may have been Obama's likability that allowed him to move this country toward a more totalitarian state without anyone noticing or objecting.  And now, having found ourselves on the way there and with a less likable president, it seems that Democrats are using the negative label  "totalitarian" to attack Trump, even though that label better suits the previous president and his administration and the policies that they put in place.

In the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, currently being touted as supportive of an anti-Trump mentality, the controlling party creates a language called Newspeak which attempts to prevent political rebellion by eliminating all words related to it.  To me this is far more reminiscent of the previous administration and certain speech codes and prohibited words: things like the threat of being a micro-aggressor by using certain words or the refusal to equate acts of terrorism with Islam.  In Nineteen Eighty-Four we learn of the Ministry of Truth where historical records are altered to fit the needs of the party.  Let us consider who it is who has demanded statues be removed, pictures torn down, names changed in order to remove the history of our racist or other negative past of this country.  Nineteen Eighty-Four ultimately shows us how the Party’s goal is to break one’s spirit completely as it demands total loyalty to the State.  Again, I find that there was far more intolerance from the previous administration for views outside the Democrat narrative than there is from the current administration.    

It is the Democrats who believe that they have the answer for how everyone should think, behave, act, and react; there is little room in the Democrat’s agenda for diverse views.  In contrast, while President Trump and his administration are strong in their own beliefs, values, and policy positions, they seem to have far more acceptance of and tolerance for the fact that theirs may not be the only view out there.  Their primary goal is to return power to the states and to the people to make their own decisions and to hold their own views and values.  This is not totalitarianism.  Those who think that it is have perhaps succumbed to the brainwashing of the real purveyors of a totalitarian state – the Democrats.

About the Judiciary

We have three branches of government.  The lawmaking branch is the legislature.  While the administrative branch also participates in law making, that is not its primary function.  Similarly, the judiciary’s function is not to make law.  Certainly, in interpreting existing law it affects the laws already made, but there is a key difference between creating or enacting a law and interpreting or applying a law already in existence.   The judicial branch of government acts as a check and balance for the other two branches, its role is not to usurp the functions of those other two branches.  If or when it does so we have a significant wound afflicted to our system of government. 

Good judges do the best they can to put their personal beliefs and emotions aside and interpret and apply the law that is written, even if they do not like that law or the result to which its application leads.  Judges of the lower courts (trial and lower appellate courts – the Federal District Courts and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal) are bound by the decisions of the higher courts within the system.  Thus, the District Courts must follow the decisions of the Circuit Court within whose region they sit.  And both must follow the decisions of the highest level appellate court in the system – the U.S. Supreme Court.  Again, when judges fail to follow necessary precedent and instead let their personal feelings rule the day they are inflicting a serious wound to our democracy.

Yet, that is exactly what seems to be happening with the most recent decisions barring implementation of Trump’s immigration ban.  Some judges, like some of the populace, do not like the President’s temporary ban because in their minds they see it as discriminatory, or as disruptive to the flow of foreign students to universities, or disruptive of tourism, or perhaps simply inconvenient to those it affects.  They are certainly entitled to those opinions, but they are not entitled to apply those opinions instead of existing law; they are not entitled to rule because of their personal feelings instead of following clear statements of law and precedent. 

Fortunately, we have an appeals process, and it is unlikely that these most recent opinions will ultimately stand.  But, in the meantime we are all wasting time and effort that could be better spent on deciding real legal controversies.  This is just one piece in what seems to be a much broader effort, whether concerted or not, to disrupt any act taken by the current administration and to undermine any and everything that it does. 

This is exactly why we needed the change signaled by the election of President Trump.  If we become a nation ruled by feelings and emotion rather than law, if we apply law only when we like it and disregard it when we don’t, then we are no longer the American democracy which has stood as a beacon of freedom for over 200 years. When we let someone, and especially a judge, make decisions affecting our nation based on personal feelings, or by inciting the feelings of others to allow taking an action, whether legally justified or not, we are supporting either the potential for dictatorship or for anarchy.

The past eight years saw us turn to an emotional, anecdotal, feel-good approach to policy-making and leadership.  Laws were not applied equally; rather, there was a picking and choosing of what laws to apply and when to apply them in order to serve policy purposes or to further an agenda of identity politics.  This use is devastating to a democracy.  The people perhaps wizened up and looked for a change.  The current administration has said it will apply all the laws as fairly as possible to all the people.  Why not let them do that instead of trying to set up land mines for every step they take, and in so doing, blow up the very democracy that is allowing the freedom that those land mines are destroying, allegedly in the name of democracy and freedom?  We need to support our democracy, which includes a legal system based on law, not emotion alone, rather than working to undermine it or applauding when others do so.  

Religious Festivals and Social Events

Yesterday was Holi, the Hindu Spring Festival of Colors.  It is an ancient festival with deep religious significance in the Hindu faith.  It begins with a variety of religious rituals and culminates in a joyous event in which people paint one another with bright colors. 

“Holi is celebrated as a social event in some areas of the United States.”  Wikipedia tells us these events are generally secular, celebrating things like the coming of spring, love, peace, equality for all.  Those are all lovely sentiments.  And there is nothing wrong with celebrating any of them.  And one can understand how dancing and spraying paint on oneself and others might be an enticing form of merriment to many.

But, what happens when we take a religious event and turn it into a secular social event?  When an event with deep religious significance is appropriated to support a secular festival, it trivializes the underlying religion and its beliefs.  It minimizes the importance of that faith and by extension, the people who are part of that faith.

This appropriation and trivialization is not uncommon.  Look at any public school today in early December.  There will often be some sort of holiday celebration in which pieces of religious holidays that occur near that time of the year are combined to create some sort of festivity.  There may be a menorah representing Hanukah, but will the children have any understanding of the significance of that menorah and the miracle that underlies the Hanukah religious celebration?   To represent Christmas students are likely to have a Christmas tree or similar decoration or maybe even an Angel, but the religious meaning of the holiday to Christians – the miracle of the birth of the son of God – are lost.  Students will learn that December is a time for celebration and gift giving, they may learn that some people celebrate differently, but will they have any understanding of the deep religious significance of these events or even that such a deeper meaning exists?

In today’s society, along with taking various religious celebrations and using them for simple secular entertainment, we take pieces of various religions and use them to create pleasing statements of spirituality that are attractive to us without truly understanding the underlying meaning and full religious significance of those statements.   It is especially popular to post memes with sayings from Buddhism or other Eastern religions and philosophies as statements about life’s true meaning.  But do those who use these quotes really understand their full and deep meaning and the work required of that religion or philosophy to attain the mental state and understanding reflected in the quote?   Even the more familiar quotes from Christianity are often taken out of context and used as simple statements of some desirable way of life; but, I often question whether the user has actually read and understood the context in which that statement was originally made, or if that user understands its meaning in the context of the religion of which it is a part.

Perhaps that is not a loss.  Some might argue better a little piece than none at all.  But to me this all reflects a very superficial and selfish approach to the world.  Religion requires work:  it requires mental work to reach a depth of understanding of the meaning of the particular religion’s beliefs; it requires work in the form of self-discipline to follow the rules that every religion has for its followers; it requires some form of self-sacrifice, if only in the prayer or contemplation required to fully understand the religion and to get closer to its God.  Many today are not inclined to put in this sort of work, work that does not provide immediate gratification and which precludes a focus on self.  So, instead, one can simply appropriate the feel good and the good sounding words from a variety of religions, celebrate them, and call themselves spiritual.  They can feel good about themselves and believe that they have some connection to something deeper because they have appropriated the words from deep and ancient beliefs. 

But, this sort of spirituality is not deep.  It is selfish and self-centered and as such is in contradiction to the real and deep beliefs that such people either seek or think that they possess. 

Moreover, it cheapens the diverse religions that do exist and the people who believe them.  While any study of comparative religion will teach one that there are many similar concepts found in most religions, that does not make those religions the same.  There are also many deep distinctions, not only in practice and doctrine, but also in the essential belief of who or what God is.  Taking nice phrases from a variety of religions and putting them together into some sort of feel good festival does not make all those religions or all their practitioners the same.  This effort to equalize all as the same, even in the name of appreciating diversity, is a denial of that very diversity.  It reflects again a laziness, because it is difficult and time consuming to get to know and understand the diversity of individuals and their beliefs.  It is much easier (and a more selfish approach) to simply paint everyone as the same. 

Turning days with deep, historic religious significance into social events might be useful if we took the time to understand the underlying beliefs.  But that is unlikely.  Instead we are minimizing some of mankind’s deepest truths into nothing more than a feel-good party.  Such parties are sadly reflective of how superficial life for many has become.

Fearless Girl

I have been trying to put my finger on what it is about the Fearless Girl statue that bothers me so.  The idea of a fearless girl certainly does not.  So, what does?  I think I have identified what it is that troubles me.

The Fearless Girl statue is a response to the Wall Street Bull, the Charging Bull.  She is a response.  She needs the masculine bull as her reason for being.  Fearless she may be, but fully dependent on the male.  If there is going to be a statue to symbolize women and their fearlessness I would rather see one that represents a woman who has the courage to be fully herself, not a creation that is a response to and therefore governed by the male.  For, I believe that women do indeed have the power, the ability, the courage, the creativity to be themselves, to design themselves to reflect fully who they are, not as simply a response to something created by someone else.  This Fearless Girl statue gives all that power to that very male symbol, the bull.

The Fearless Girl perhaps reflects the anger of so many women.  But let’s examine some of that anger.  Yes, women sometimes face barriers that men do not.  But the success or failure of a woman is not dependent on anyone but herself.  A woman, like any human being, may become angry when she feels that things are not fair.  But she still has the ability to fashion herself as she finds herself, to become whom it is that she wants to be.  If she cannot achieve some of that which she desires because of unfair barriers, then she can work to change those barriers or to find a way around them.  That takes work, not just anger, and certainly not just anger at a whole class of people.   

Today’s women’s movement seems to be a selfish display of anger and blame.  But in approaching the world in that way women are losing the self-reflection that is necessary to become the person that each individually is and hopes to be.  They are letting others define for them their hopes, dreams, and who they are.  They are responding to someone else, rather than themselves.  They are subjecting themselves to the very powers against which they protest.  And, so, I guess that the Fearless Girl statue, whose whole reason for being is determined by another, by a male bull, is very appropriate for this women’s movement.  Sadly, though, it does not represent who women truly are, and what they really have the potential to become.

Why Trump

There is a small newspaper that admits its bias against Trump.   But what is truly laudable is not only its acknowledgement of that fact, but its invitation to all Trump supporters in its state to write a short piece (about 200 words) of why they voted for Trump and how he is doing.  They promise to publish these because they believe it is their duty to present all sides of an issue.

Wow, if only the large corporate media would think this way!

So, kudos to the Albuquerque [New Mexico] Free Press.

If I were to respond I might include some of the following reasons for supporting Trump.  These are points not arrived at by looking at polls or viewing the country through the limited lens of a biased reporter or a Washington insider.  These are just real reasons from a real American.

First, why vote for him:

• He heard the voices of real people all across America;
• He believed in responding to those voices rather than imposing his own upon them and indicated that would be his response as president as well;
• He indicated he would reverse the excessive overreach and divisive identity politics of Obama, his administration, and the Democrat party;
• He is a straight talker, telling it like it is rather than using typical politi-speech;
• He sees the good America and its potential, not a negative America that requires repeated apology;
• He respects the American spirit and the power of the people and, rather than encourage dependence on the government he encourages individual responsibility.

 Those might be some of the key reasons for a Trump vote.  Now, on to how he is doing:

• He is keeping his campaign promises, or at least trying to, despite constant attempts to derail him and his agenda;
• He is an actor, not a talker – he will do things rather than talk about them;
• He is listening to the American people, especially those who have been forgotten for the last eight years;
• He is reversing the federal government overreach and power grab that occurred during the last administration and is trying to return much of the usurped power to the states, local governments and the people themselves;
• He is refusing to play the political games and media games that Washington and its usual power brokers are used to;
• He continues to forge ahead, despite every imaginable attempt by the Democrats to derail him.

Now, that alone is a little more than the allotted 200 words, yet there is still something to be said.  And that is first about the opposition, and second about the man himself.

As to the opposition.  This is more than the typical “loyal opposition” that exists for every administration and is a key part of our democracy.  This is a true attempt to undermine the man and his presidency.  This is more than simply being a party of “no” – that was bad enough when some Republicans tried it in the past, but even then those Republicans were not attempting to undermine our very democracy.  (And, as to the party of “no” during the Obama administration, while there were some who vowed to oppose everything, there were many others who initially made every effort to work with Obama until he proved that he would not do so perhaps because it interfered with his use of identity politics and condemnation of other viewpoints to advance his agenda.) 

The Democrat opposition to Trump is different.  First, it is personal.  They do not like the man and refuse to accept that he actually could have garnered enough votes to be elected.  They cannot accept that there really are people out there who hold views different from their own or worse yet, do not agree with their views about or plans for the future of the country.  Beyond that, is the fact that the leaders of this opposition are out of power and they desperately seek to regain that lost power.  Their attempts to undermine the presidency has far more to do with that than it does with any consideration of what is good for America or its people.  If they were truly concerned with the good of this country they would first try to understand those views that are different from theirs and that got Trump elected, and then they would try to work with the current administration, work out compromises where necessary, to move forward the agenda of the people for the good of the country.

A final comment about Trump the man.  He is not a politician.  He does not do politi-speak.  He is human and makes no apologies for being so.  He has some not so admirable qualities.  But he also is a hard worker who gets things done.  He understands people.  He believes in America, the American dream, and is making every effort to turn the country from the wrong track that the majority believed it was on for the last eight years.  Those who hate the man need to separate that personal hatred from an understanding of his presidency.  

I personally respect Trump the man.  While I might not like everything he has ever done in his life, I don’t know of any human being that I would say is perfect, about whom I would not find something less than likable.  I find Trump to be a very real person and the very person that this country needs right now to bring us back to reality so that we can fix the many problems created during the past eight years.  If we could all be real Americans and support our president, opposing as a loyal opposition when necessary, then we could really reach Trump’s campaign slogan of making America great again:  we would move back  to the great country we once were and which we can be again, a country that cares about all its citizens, that truly accepts diverse and unpopular viewpoints, that demands and respects individual responsibility along with individual freedom, and which offers everyone a shot at the American dream.

Thoughts About Tim Russert and How Sunday Morning News Shows Have Changed

Those of you who followed the news before it was entertainment will remember Tim Russert as the host of Sunday morning’s Meet the Press.  His interviews were always enlightening and often showed us the weaknesses of politicians and/or their positions.  But the key to those interviews was that Russert asked the questions that the audience wanted asked, and he got the answers.  That was what he gave us, and he had the respect for his audience that they could use that gift to make up their own minds about the information.  What Mr. Russert did not do was present us with his own agenda and use answers or non-answers of his guests to argue for his position on an issue.   

Tim Russert was always respectful of his guests, no matter what he personally may have thought of them or their positions.  When he asked a question, he demanded an answer; he did not allow non-answers to go unchallenged but would simply allow the non-answer, then ask the question again.  (His audience was perfectly capable of noting the attempted evasion; Mr. Russert did not have to tell us) When he got an answer to a question, he would let the answer stand.  He did not attack it in an attempt to argue his own position.  He did not editorialize about the answer.  Rather, he would let the audience make their own judgments about the answer provided.

Here is a transcript of a piece of a Russert interview with Al Gore about abortion (from a piece written by Nicholas Lemann, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/24/buffalo-tim ), with my notes in italics:

Russert: When do you think life begins?

Gore:I favor the Roe vs. Wade approach, but let me just say, Tim, I did--

[note how Russert cuts him off as he begins not to answer the question, and refocuses on the question]

Russert: Which is what? When does life begin?

Gore: Let me just say, I did change my position on the issue of federal funding and I changed it because I came to understand more from women—women think about this differently than men.

[and, again, he returns to try to get an answer to the question]

Russert: But you were calling fetuses innocent human life, and now you don’t believe life begins at conception. I’m just trying to find out, when do you believe life begins?

Gore: Well, look, the Roe vs. Wade decision proposes an answer to that question—

[and, again, the question:]

Russert: Which is?

Note that what Russert does not do is editorialize about Gore’s non-answer, nor does he argue with Gore about the statements he is making.  Russert simply lets his questions and the interviewee’s answers (or in this case non-answers) speak for themselves.  He does not cross-examine Gore or try to prove that Gore’s statements are correct or incorrect, good or bad.  He just asks the questions and leaves the audience to understand and make its own judgments about the answers received.

Russert made frequent use of quotes previously uttered by his guests.  He would ask a guest to explain a quote.  The question might very well leave interviewees at a loss to explain themselves or appear to be caught in a lie.  But Mr. Russert would not call them a liar; rather, he would let the interviewee’s words and/or confusion speak for themselves.

Russert, in an interview of him (http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/tim-russert# ), talks about the enormous amount of preparation he did for each guest on Meet the Press, including intense study of the issue, of news reports, books, magazines about it, and talking to “real people.”   He notes that the guests never had the questions in advance (“this is not professional wrestling”), but that he expected the guests to do their own preparation for what they assumed would be the topics of the day.  If a guest asked to discuss a particular topic, Russert might do so, but the guest would never know the specific questions or approach that Russert would take. 

In the video, Russert also talks about the need to challenge his interviewees in “an aggressive, but civil way.”  He notes that “the questions you [the interviewer] are asking do not represent your personal views; you are asking them to elicit a response.”  He believed it was his job to ask his guests the questions that his viewers were concerned about, the questions that affected their lives.  Listening to this Russert interview you see the enormous respect that he has for the American people and their ability to think for themselves.  He asked questions that gave his viewers the information they needed to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions about politics. He certainly did not believe that it was his job to prosecute for one view or defend another or to try to sway the public to his personal view on an issue.

Wow, how different these shows are today.  The questions are not open ended, but are leading, designed to elicit a response that will further the interviewer’s agenda and strengthen his or her position on the point.  Questions go unanswered when that is favorable to the interviewer’s agenda, just as answers are attacked when the interviewer wants to show that his/her position and not the interviewee’s position is the correct position on an issue.  There is certainly no civility when the interviewee holds a position opposite to that of the interviewer.  And, with today's interviewers' personal positions on issues so clear, the interview really becomes not a presentation of information for the viewer, but nothing more than a presentation of an argument of why the interviewer’s position is correct or of how clever the interviewer is. 

While Tim Russert may have played “gotcha” from time to time, he did so by simply asking questions and allowing answers; it was the interviewee’s own answers that got him, not Mr. Russert (though, I assume Mr. Russert often knew what would be the result of the question and answer).  Now these Sunday morning (and other) news shows are simply a constant game of “gotcha” in which the interviewer attacks in a constant effort to show how he/she got the interviewee and in so doing furthered the personal beliefs and agenda of the interviewer, not of his audience.  There is really no respect for or belief in the audience’s ability to think for itself.

Perhaps the audience likes watching this “Gotcha” game show; these shows, after all, have now become a form of entertainment.  But what has been lost is a respect for the viewing audience and its ability to take information presented objectively, and make their own judgments about that information.   What we lose are facts and truth.  And that loss is significant when we are talking about issues that affect our country and our lives.

Dear Anti-Trumpers, Give Up the Mob Mentality and Think!

Dear Anti-Trumpers and others participating in the current mob-mentality opposing President Trump:

            Let’s say that you succeed in your goal of taking down the Trump administration, or removing Trump from office, or, more broadly, in completely remaking our American form of government.  Have you thought about where that leaves you?

            If you are hoping to return to Obama’s government, just stop for a minute and think whether it in every way was so different from the current administration.  Look at immigration and deportation.  Obama deported enormous numbers and Trump’s ICE is simply continuing his actions. 

Perhaps you did not notice, because the narrative that you have chosen to believe is that Obama is good, Trump is bad and, therefore, Obama does only good things, Trump does only bad.  The same actions by the two men or their administrations are ignored or seen as good on the one hand but highly noticed and seen as bad on the other. 

The Russiagate that doesn’t exist is another example.  Obama, Democratic Congress-people, members of Obama’s administration all met with Russian ambassadors and others – you ignored that.  Trump and his people do the same and it has suddenly become an offense requiring removal from office.    You manufacture innuendo about Trump connections with Russia during the campaign, but you ignore such things as donations from Russia to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary attempted to hide.  You want the Attorney General removed because while a senator he did what many other both Republican and Democrat senators did – met with the Russian ambassador (as well as ambassadors from many foreign countries). 

The Democratic senators calling for Mr. Sessions head conveniently forgot they had met the ambassador as they asserted they would never have done such a thing.  But, there are records out there that have proven their lies and their hypocrisy.  (That’s the problem when one starts taking a holier than thou stance – in the end we find out that the same imperfections exist in the attacker as in the attacked). 

Where was the call for the removal of Obama’s attorney general when she secretly met with Bill Clinton in regard to the probe of Clinton’s private email server and her improper handling of classified information?  More hypocrisy as you blindly ignore any possible wrong doing simply because you have determined that Obama and anything or anyone connected to him is all good.   

The problem is, the world, people, life is not simply good or bad (I was going to say black or white, but in this day and age, that phrase would probably be designated as some sort of racist remark).  So, not pure good or evil, but generally a mix.  And that is why it makes no sense for you to attempt to destroy one man’s administration because you have somehow been convinced that the man is evil.

            And, if you are hoping that by removing Trump you will get the “perfection” of Obama, understand that you will get much of what you are trying to eliminate.  You will get meetings with Russian ambassadors, you will get deportations, you will get regulations that you do not like.  You will not get the perfection that you seek.  You will also get a much bigger government. 

Think about this:  Do you really want the all-powerful federal government that you are seeking?  Do you want the government to make all your decisions for you, do you want to relinquish your independence and individuality to big brother?  Do you want to relinquish your free speech to rules of political correctness and prohibitions of “micro aggressions”?  Do you want regulations that are duplicative and triplicative to the extent that they squelch business growth, job creation and innovation, and result in higher government costs meaning higher taxes for you?  Do you want entitlement programs that become the norm, a necessary part of people’s lives, rather than an exception and a hand up that help people to stand on their own and become the fullest human being they can be?  Do you understand that those programs are paid for by you and your friends and neighbors as taxes become higher and higher? Do you want education that is so controlled by a federal government that there is no real freedom of thought in the classrooms? 

If these are the things that you want, well then go for it.  Continue your subversive attempt to destroy the Trump administration and with it our democracy.  Continue to practice your hypocrisy. But, if you can think for yourself, then please take time to do so and consider where your actions are taking you.  Do not let the heat of the moment, the hatred of a man, the biased reporting, the words of people who have lost their power and believe they are entitled to have it back in any way possible, do not let these things guide you, but rather be guided by your own thought and understanding of all the facts and all the consequences of the immediate actions that you take.

Democrats Seeking their own Utopia, Using Soft Coup to Get There

Do the supporters of the Democrats understand what they are really supporting?  Right now it is a witch hunt.  

Democrats do not like Trump.  They do not like him because he won the election.  They do not like him because he acknowledged the many people whom, despite its proclamations to the contrary, the Democrat party had forgotten in its march toward its true goal of big government.  They do not like Trump because he wants to turn back the federal government overreach that raged out of control for the last eight years.   

The Trump administration is upsetting the march towards a utopia envisioned by the Progressive Democrat power structure, a utopia in which they and the big government they create control every aspect of the lives of the citizens of this country, a utopia in which the citizenry turns over responsibility for their lives, their speech, their decisions to the big government.  And, because they envision themselves as the leaders of that government, they will be the ones making those decisions – the decisions that they, not the people, determine to be best.  That’s the problem with utopias: they create a perfect place where government, laws, social conditions are all perfect, but that perfection is defined by those who create the utopia.  That is, there is no room for those who disagree with the definitions.  There is a reason why Utopia is an imaginary place.  And, the utopia envisioned by the Progressive Democrats is not America, at least not the America that we know and that has existed for over 200 years with is freedom for diverse views and individuality.  Their utopia is nothing more than a dictatorship. 

Had the Democrats won the presidential election they could (and would) have continued their steady march toward this utopia that they envision.  But, the people, in their wisdom, voted to stop that march and instead strengthen the America that we know and which provides both freedom and responsibility to the people.  So, the Democrats, rather than accept defeat and work with the administration chosen by the people, instead wage a clandestine war not only on the administration, but on the very nature of our democracy.  They will pick and dig to find any word or act that they can (using omission, fabrication, etc. along with illegal leaks and the help of many very biased media) to attack every idea, every policy, and every person associated with the administration.  They pretend to be shocked when a Republican says or does something that Democrats have said or done themselves many times.  They repeat allegations, then assert, without actual proof, that their allegations are fact requiring action against the administration. They have now grasped onto some idea of a Russian conspiracy and their witch hunt for Republican conspirators sounds and looks very much like the McCarthyism of the 1950s. They delay and distract in an effort to completely cripple the administration, and in so doing, they cripple the country (not that they really care about that – their goal is to create their utopia).

What is going on is nothing more than a coup by people who do not like this country, who do not accept that the people are the actual governing body ("government of, for, by the people").  This is a coup by people who believe that they can do it better than the general public and that in order to put themselves in the places of power to do so it is perfectly OK to commit illegal activities, to lie, to attack, to foment hatred, to silence alternative and opposing views.  These are people who must truly hate America and have no qualms about destroying it and all its institutions in order to create whatever it is that they envision.

What I don’t understand is how and why so many people are willing to follow this selfish and destructive leadership.  I do understand that those trying to bring down the government are quite clever and they have the help of some very powerful politicians, donors, and media.  They are very skilled at manipulation and propaganda.  But, I am truly sickened that so many people do not see what is going on.  The leaders are perfectly clear about what they are doing.  The sad thing is that many follow along, not realizing that they are participating in a covert effort to destroy America.  Rather than just accepting the narrative of the Democrat leaders, it is time for people to think for themselves (this includes politicians, reporters, and every individual citizen).  It is time for people to stand up and say “STOP,” to demand that the Democrats begin working for the people instead of for themselves.  It is time to think before just parroting the day’s propaganda, time for supporters to ask whether they really want the utopia that their leaders would create and that they are supporting, even if unknowingly.  It really is time to wake up, not to stand by and allow those desperate for their own power to undermine our freedoms and our country in order to take away the people’s power and use it for their own.

Another Political Hit

General Flynn was effectively taken down by illegal leaks and questionable surveillance.  But, then, the democrats, who can’t seem to accept the fact that someone with views differing from theirs was elected by the American people, did not like Flynn’s positions, so, he had to go.  Yes, Flynn did not fully represent facts to his bosses, but he was forced out by the illegal leaks.

Now we have the case of Attorney General Sessions who, some are claiming, should be forced to resign.  Why? Because they are taking his answer to a question as proof that he somehow perjured himself.  Yet, how many have listened to the question to which that answer attaches?  When one does, it becomes clear that there is no misstatement, no information withheld, and indeed no wrongdoing. What Mr. Sessions was doing was his job at the time, which included meeting with foreign ambassadors.  There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

But, no matter.  Let the democrats, who still can't seem to accept that someone with views differing form theirs was elected by the American people, do not like Mr. Sessions’ positions or approach to being Attorney General, so, then, they have decided he must go.  So, take a statement fully out of context, omit other relevant facts, and watch the democrats and the media go wild.  And, what better time to do so than following the President’s very effective Congressional address?

The question is, will the rest of the country, will the American people, fall for this?  For how long?  How long are we going to accept this calculated disruption of the President’s administration and his agenda?  Will the rank and file democrats, who seem to be blindly following their leaders, wake up and begin to think for themselves?  As of now, that does not seem to be happening.  Anyone who watched the President’s address to Congress last Tuesday saw the photos of the democrats in the audience trying their hardest to look uninterested, bored, and disgusted.  Clearly they were not listening, nor do they have any intent other than to continue to disrupt.  Certainly, they are not interested in working across the aisle for the benefit of the American people. The statements of many democrats following the speech (but easily written before even hearing it) underscore this. I hope that the everyday Americans who currently call themselves democrats are watching and listening and most importantly understanding what is going on as the democratic leadership focuses on regaining its own power rather than having a primary focus on what it can do for the American people.

On February 15 my blog, titled (Unwitting) Tools ( http://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/02/unwitting-tools.html ) addressed the idea that a soft coup might be in process as the democrats and their allies attempt to bring down the president and/or his administration.  That blog points out that even if one believes in the goal of unseating President Trump, the ends do not justify the means of subversive attacks that undermine the very core of our democracy.

Really, people, it is time to grow up.  Donald Trump is our president.  Many do not like him as a person.  Many do not like one or more of his policies.  Nonetheless, the American people voted and he is indeed our president.  Rather than hate everything he does because you either hate the man or hate some aspect of his agenda, why not try to find some common ground with him and his policies.  Rather than building stories that work to dismantle and emasculate his administration so that nothing can be accomplished, why not work to help make that administration effective.  That does not mean not speaking out against those policies with which you disagree, but make the focus a particular policy while you find other areas on which you can compromise and work with the other side.  Fight for an alteration of a specific policy, not to completely destroy the duly elected president and everything and everyone connected to him.   Instead of supporting one party that is currently in total opposition and which seems to have no interest in working for the people of this country or for a better America, try working for policies with which you agree.  Work for America, not just for one side and not just against the other.  It is time for America and all of its people to wake up and not stand for another hit in a soft coup whose goal will not serve, and will indeed smother, American democracy.