Let’s Just Grow Up

When I was six and in first grade my older brother would teach me about what he was learning in school.  Often his Jr. High learning went well beyond my first-grade curriculum; nonetheless, I loved learning about the many different things that he knew. 

I can remember when my big brother taught me about our First Amendment freedoms.  I was fascinated by this aspect of our democracy.  I grasped only a very basic idea of the complex concepts that my brother tried to explain but I couldn’t wait to tell my best friend about them.  The next morning I ran onto the playground, found my friend, and told her that we lived in a free society and we could do and say and think what we wanted.  She looked at me like I was a bit nuts, and said, “That’s not true.  I had to pay for my Popsicle yesterday.  It wasn’t free, so we don’t live in a free society.”

That’s pretty good logic for a 6-year-old.  But I knew she was wrong, that living in a free society was somehow still true, despite the cost of Popsicles.  I just couldn’t express why.  I didn’t have the understanding that my brother did, so all I could do was just repeat the “sound bite” from his lecture that had stuck with me: “Yes we do live in a free society.”  I didn’t have the depth of knowledge or related education and learning sufficient to explain what that meant.  So, after a few repetitions of “yes we do” and “no we don’t” our dialogue ended.

We never discussed this again, and we remained friends, but I think that interchange to some extent changed the relationship between us.  I thought she was stupid because she didn’t understand me, and she thought I was an idiot for claiming our society was free when it clearly wasn’t. 

This immature reaction is normal for a pair of 6-year-olds faced with a discussion about something beyond what they at that point are educated to understand.  It is not appropriate for mature adults. Yet, sadly, this is the sort of reaction we are likely to encounter when presenting a political opinion to someone holding a differing view. 

Had we 6-year-olds had a deeper comprehension of what we were addressing, a better understanding of the word “freedom” in the context of our democracy, we likely could have engaged in an actual discussion of the questions raised by each other’s assertion.  We could have both listened and explained to one another.   We would have been able to, without name calling, understand each other’s viewpoints and the issues raised.  Differences, rather than resulting in insurmountable obstacles and irreconcilable name calling would have produced a constructive sharing of information and working together to resolve differences.

That is what mature people do.  Immature people, people who are making statements about things that they don’t understand, act like 6-year-olds.  Because they often are simply parroting someone else’s rhetoric without any real understanding of the complexities of the issue or viewpoint, they do not have the ability to grasp and understand a differing point of view.  They have simply adopted a point of view (or sound bite) superficially, and when that view is not agreed with or is challenged, they think there is something wrong with the one challenging it, and often see it as a personal attack and then respond with either attack or complete dismissal of the challenger. There is no tolerance.

This is not only unproductive; it is dangerous.  When people are willing to accept assertions without their own investigation or critical thinking, without even attempting to hear, let alone understand another viewpoint, there can be no resolution of differences.  Instead, the “conversation” will be some form of my 6-year-old “yes it is; no it isn’t.”

It is only when one really understands the viewpoint that they are professing that they can openly listen to other view points and critically assess those views against their own, understanding the position of the person holding the alternate view point and honing in on where there are places for agreement as well as disagreement.  Only by exploring one another’s viewpoints and rationale behind them can those who seem to disagree come to any sort of mutual understanding about issues raised by those viewpoints.

Similarly, only when one truly grasps the depths and nuances of what they are professing can they explain their position to another.  Until then, disagreements become attacks as mere soundbites are simply thrown back and forth.  Disagreements generate not learning, but name calling or even more violent responses as the 6-year-old type responses escalate into what might be akin to playground violence or rock-throwing.  These are typical responses when one does not have the education or maturity to deal with what one does not, or is not willing to, understand.

It is not unreasonable that two six-year-olds would not be able to have a conversation about different viewpoints when the underlying subject was more complex and profound than they were ready to handle.   But it is less reasonable to tolerate such inability from adults who consider themselves educated, informed, and mature. 

Our political discourse these days is like that of 6-year-olds.  People spout their party line.  If disagreed with they name-call the one who disagrees with what they see as an appropriate epithet:  bigot, racist, deplorable, etc.  I, personally, have been called most of the epithets in vogue by the Democrats simply for holding a position on one or another issue that is contrary to theirs.  I have yet to find a member of the Progressive or Socialist Left who is willing to sit down and have a rational and mature conversation about why we might favor different policies towards an issue that is of concern to us both. 

Had my family not moved, I suspect that at some point my friend and I would have studied the Constitution together in school, developed a better understanding about it and the principles of our democracy, and had another discussion.  I would like to believe that we would listen and learn from one another, rather than simply reacting with complete negativity to the one holding a different view.  I also believe that in this particular instance, once we defined what we meant by “freedom” in the context of our societal principles that we would find that we were not really standing in opposition, or even very far at all from one another.  And any differences we did have would not be insurmountable obstacles to our ability to work together to resolve any issues presented by our differing views.

Such conversations require tolerance.  Tolerance of viewpoints that differ from one’s own.  They also require a desire to reach a common goal – in my example conversation it would have been to understand freedom in the context of democracy, its meaning and its limitations.  Our goal might have been to resolve issues we saw within those parameters that would make are freedoms clearer and more secure.  We would need to understand one another’s viewpoints to do that.

When we have a Democrat party that is focused not on having a dialogue with their Republican counterparts to address and improve problems facing our country, but is instead singularly focused on removing President Donald J. Trump from office, it is impossible to have anything more than the equivalent of the 6-year-olds’ dialogue.  We see this playing out in the impeachment.  The Democrats have their narrative – facts be damned.  If you counter their narrative, if you oppose them in any way, Adam Schiff tells us “you will have your head on a pike.”  Said with the maturity of a 6-year-old.

If we want this country to survive, we must remember that its greatness requires tolerance, wisdom, and maturity.  There is not much of that going around these days.  It is time to grow up!

The Eve of Impeachment

"What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."
-Donald J. Trump, Jan. 20, 2017

This quotation is especially significant on this Eve of Impeachment, an impeachment being sought by those who themselves would take all control from the people.

I had not intended to write about this whole impeachment debacle, first because there is more than enough being written by others and second because to give time to this sham seems somehow wrong.  But the quotation reminded me that we the people should never give up our vigilance, and certainly not when there is a concerted effort to take away our voices and our power.

So, herein I will first look as some of the context surrounding this “impeachment” and then at the constitution itself, both of which I think argue for a quick dismissal. 

As the rhetoric ramps up on this Eve of Impeachment, I think that anyone who fairly, critically, and objectively looks at the situation can agree upon certain things.

First, President Trump’s style is completely different than that of his predecessor as well as different from most smooth-talking politicians.  The President tweets, he uses common and sometimes gruff language, he doesn’t beat around the bush, but instead tells it like it is.  This seems to offend many, especially those whose style is more refined (or who would like to think that they or their style are more refined).

Second, the President’s policies are also different from those of the previous administration and of today’s Democrats.  Yet, the people elected Donald Trump, and with him his policies.  With a change in policy comes a change in personnel; the president always has a right to remove people appointed by a different administration and bring in his own people.  That includes removing long term bureaucrats, especially those who have come to believe that they, not the people’s elected officials, should be running things.  The Democrats like to latch onto such personnel changes as some sort of evidence of abuse of power, when they are simply a lawful change in policy, one that the people chose by their vote.

Third, the Democrats have been trying to remove the President from office since just minutes after his inauguration, minutes after he uttered the above quoted words.  They have been searching and searching to find something, anything, that would allow them to overturn the results of the election.  We have had name-calling, we had 2 years of the Russian investigation that despite having shown that it was a big nothing the Democrats continue to assert as some sort of wrongdoing by the President.  We have had attempts to thwart every policy decision and appointment by the President with which the Democrats disagree.  

We then had a “whistle-blower” who was colluding with Adam Schiff or other Democrats who gave us a phone conversation that turned out to simply be a request to investigate some possible misconduct during the past administration that may have involved a member of that administration who is now a candidate in the Democratic presidential primary.  From that phone call we had Adam Schiff conduct secret hearings from which he revealed only select portions of testimony, and during which Republicans were not allowed to question witnesses or present their own witnesses or present their side of the case.  Despite their one-sided unfairness, these hearings again produced no evidence of a crime.  Nonetheless, the Democrats, through their own admission, need to impeach the President or, they fear, he will be re-elected.

Fourth, many of the Democrats, in their unremitting quest for power which marches hand in hand with their quest to remove President Trump, have shown a deep disregard for our Constitution and its protections.  The most recent example of this is Nancy Pelosi’s statements that essentially assert that the President must prove his innocence.  Apparently, she doesn’t understand this country’s most basic concept of innocent until proven guilty.  In a trial, which is essentially what impeachment is, the prosecution (here the House) must make a basic case.  If no such case is made, the case will be dismissed.  This is what should actually happen here: because the articles of impeachment presented by the House do not make a case it is a waste of time and taxpayer money to not dismiss this entire frivolity.

If a case goes forward, both sides will present their evidence and the prosecution must prove their case beyond other, reasonable understandings of the evidence.  Until such time the defendant is innocent; asking a defendant to prove his innocence is like asking someone when they stopped beating their wife which requires them to essentially prove they never beat their wife to begin with. (Or, to use a more topical example from the last Democrat debate, it is like asking candidate Warren what she said when Bernie Sanders said a woman can’t be president.  That question, asked by CNN, includes the assumption that Sanders is guilty of that statement, something which he denies, and which has not been proven, but of which he is now expected to prove his innocence). 

The Democrat method of late is always to label, call names, accuse, and then demand that the one accused find a way to prove they are innocent of the charges, charges that often have no supportive evidence. One of their most egregious uses of this tactic was the Kavanaugh hearing, but we see it every day in their accusations against the President, his staff, his supporters, and the everyday people with whom the Democrats disagree as they try to silence and destroy any opposition.

Yes, beyond our Constitutional rights to a fair trial and other judicial protections, the Democrats are also eager to ignore our First Amendment rights to freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion.  They are just as eager to ignore and deny Second Amendment rights.  They consider as invalid an election by the process set forth in the Constitution using the Electoral College.  They talk about “stacking” the Supreme Court so as to make it a partisan political branch.  And, of course, they forgo their oaths to the Constitution and their duty to listen to and speak for their constituents rather than simply pursuing their personal power agendas.

With such a complete disregard of our Constitution and our governmental structures, the oath that was taken last week by senators to conduct a fair trial seems almost a joke.  If the Democrats hold such disdain for our government then what meaning did that oath have for them?  The clear answer is: Nothing. Their oath is to their quest to destroy the President and either remove him from office or so weaken him that he will either not be re-elected or, if he is, he will be able to do nothing.   Despite their pretense that this is a solemn occurrence that they are taking seriously, we see Democrats joking, laughing with glee, handing out golden pens, and delighting in saying that regardless of the outcome, the President will be forever impeached and hence his name forever blackened.  It’s like they want to put an asterisk by his name to say he wasn’t really legitimate.  And their reason is simply this:  because they hate him.

So, the lawyers will argue about what is impeachable.  The senators will argue about rules.  The media will be a bit histrionic about everything, with a clear bias against the President.  We know the Democrats have no qualms about lying (for example Adam Schiff putting a false record of the phone call into the house record).  Democrats will try to prolong this since the longer it stays before the public, the more it is likely to hurt the President; first, because when people hear things repeated over and over they tend to begin to believe them whether or not they are true; and, second because focus on this keeps the President from focusing on the more important things like continuing to grow our economy, eliminating threats to our country, foreign policy, etc. while giving Democrats cover for doing none of the people’s work.

In the end, this is all quite simple, especially if we begin by looking at the Constitution.  Article 2 has 4 sections which cover the duties of the executive branch as well as impeachment.  In part, that article states as follows:

               Sec. 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” [The remainder of this section explains qualifications, election, term, etc as well as the President’s oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

               Sec. 2:  This section sets fort the powers of the president and includes that he is the Commander in Chief of the military, explains his power to grant reprieves and pardons, and his treaty making powers.

               Sec. 3:  This explains the president’s duties to inform Congress via the State of the Union address, to receive ambassadors and other state officials and his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

               Sec. 4:   “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

There are no detailed explanations of the impeachable crimes, but, in Article 3 which deals with judicial powers, immediately following a paragraph that mentions form of trials, including impeachment, Section 3 defines treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”  Using typical canons of statutory construction, one can reasonably assume that the other “crimes and misdemeanors” would be of equivalent gravity. 

So, with this legal background and context, I can see no way that the House’s articles of impeachment should not simply be dismissed.  There is no crime alleged and no evidence of any impeachable crime.

The first charge is “Abuse of Power”  Historically, it has been made clear that “abuse of power” alone is not an impeachable offense, especially since the out of power party regularly accuses the in power party and president of abuse of power when it carries out policies that the out of power party does not agree with.  If abuse of power is impeachable, then every president will face political impeachment.

The President had a legitimate reason to ask for an investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma.  Such investigation involved possible misdeeds by members of the previous administration.  That the vice-president of that administration happens to be a current Democrat candidate for president does not mean that those misdeeds should not be investigated, even if such investigation might in some way affect that candidate’s current campaign.  The investigation was into Ukrainian corruption that may implicate the previous administration and that is a legitimate act if not a duty for the current president to investigate. 

The President had a right and a duty to call for an investigation, and to withhold distribution of monies to Ukraine until he was assured that the known corruption in that country was being dealt with.  He also had the power to conduct his negotiations and discussions with that country in his style and with the people that he chose.  It was not an abuse of power to remove bureaucrats and other public servants whom he felt were not effective in carrying out his polices.  There is no actual evidence, other than opinion and innuendo, that what the president did or said in regard to Ukraine was anything but legitimate.

Actually, if anyone is obviously doing something to affect a presidential election it is the Democrat Senators who are also candidates for president who will sit in judgement of their opponent.  Certainly, the outcome of the impeachment trial will have a bearing on their candidacy; they have a personal stake in this.  When a judge has a personal interest in some aspect of a case, he or she will recuse from hearing and deciding the case so as to avoid even the appearance of bias.  One should expect no less from the Democrat senator-candidates.  Yet, that expectation will not be met and is simply another demonstration of the fact that this impeachment is not about fairness but about the Democrats attacking their opponent for political purposes, not for the good of the country.

As to the second article of impeachment, “Obstruction of Congress,” the mere allegations of this article only go to prove the Democrats’ utter disregard for our legal system.  The essence of the allegation is that the executive branch did not comply with subpoenas and other information or testimony requests from the House.  However, what this ignores is the right to question the validity of subpoenas and other requests in a court of law – something which the President and others were in the process of doing when the Democrat House decided to impeach.   

The Democrats were unwilling to let the judicial process take its course and determine what information the President was required to provide. Only once the judiciary had rendered final opinions, including all appeals, would they then possibly be able to claim abuse if the President did not abide by those decisions.  But, in their rush of hatred and desire for removal, the Democrats were unwilling to wait.  Their disregard for our justice system was simply part of the means justifying their political end.

So, I really see nothing here and, in my opinion, this should simply be dismissed.  It will not be, because everyone will be afraid that to do so would be portrayed by the Democrats and their Mainstream Media as some sort of cover-up.  Instead, the Democrats will try to drag this out and waste more and more of the taxpayer money trying to dig for something else to use against the President and silence the voice of the people.  For, in the Democrat view, it is they who should control the people. 

On this Eve of Impeachment, I hope the people will not be fooled.  I hope they will see the Democrats for what they are:  disaffected and power hungry with a hatred so strong that they are willing to dismantle our Constitution and the core principles of our democracy in order to assuage it. 

Happy New Year! What is Your Mission?

Happy New Year!

I am hoping for a new year in which everyone (including myself) becomes a bit more tolerant and that we are able to be thankful for what we each have and take joy simply in living without forever taking issue with those who have more, less, or are simply different in mind, body, or spirit than we are.

But, then, I read the morning news and learned that the Left has declared this the “year of resistance.”  (One wonders what the last 3 years have been?!)  The Left have vowed to double their efforts to remove President Trump from office, whether by the electoral process or by other means, they don’t really seem to care.

This caused me to again reflect upon what is “the Left” and why are they always so discontented and hateful?  We must begin with the understanding that, even though they both inhabit the Democrat Party, Leftists are not Liberals and that Leftism is not Liberalism.

While we often use the two terms interchangeably or think of Left as simply more extreme Liberalism, the reality is that the two have very different world views and each’s ideal includes very different Americas. 

Liberals essentially believe in American Democracy and Capitalism but understand its imperfections and would make changes to improve but not fundamentally change them.  Liberals would like to see more income equality, more affordable housing, better and more affordable health care, less discrimination, etc., but they would create these things within the capitalist structure of this country.  Their disagreements with the Right are more often on how to achieve these things within our governmental structure rather than with the governmental structure itself.   

The Right also has a number of conservative factions including fiscal, Christian, traditionalist, libertarian, moderate, as well as some extremists; but, for the most part the Right or Republicans all support the American capitalist form of government.   As such, when the two parties consisted mostly of conservatives and liberals, it was easier for the government to accomplish necessary changes as the two sides could more easily work toward successful compromises within the same fundamental government structure and ideals.

In contrast, the Left considers capitalism as something that should be done away with.  While they would like to see many results similar to those advocated by Liberals, their method of achieving those goals is to fundamentally change the governing structure of America.  While Liberals might want to see governmental structures change more quickly, the Left would like to see them change completely.  Ultimately, in their desire to create what they would see as a better incarnation, the Left would destroy everything that makes America what it is today. 

Hence the Left’s hatred of Trump, patriotism, and nationalism.  A note here:  nationalism is simply a support for one’s own nation.  While that nationalism can take a dark turn it is not in and of itself an evil; indeed, it is something that is necessary for the health and sustenance of any country or nation-state.  Similarly, patriotism is nothing more than support for one’s country along with a feeling of attachment to that country.  These are not negative things, but they become negative to a group that would completely destroy that country and rebuild it with something else.  This is what the Left would do.

The Left would completely restructure our economy, and in doing so would also completely restructure our democracy.  They cannot follow the Liberal approach of compromise or have patience for the slower path of change that occurs within our current systems because the Left does not believe in that system.  The Left wants not only immediate change but also change to a completely different system.  Their entire ideology is different.

The Left rejects the core ideologies of this country.  For example, Leftism is based on class solidarity, not national solidarity and not human solidarity.  The class – the identity group – is essential to a Left philosophy.  While America believes that the color of one’s skin should be insignificant (and despite history that contradicted that, our country has and continues to allow us to move past inequalities based upon race or other identifiable factors),  to the left, seeing race as insignificant is actually racist.  That is, the Left needs racial identity to build class or identity group solidarity.

The Left’s view toward free speech is entirely antithetical to that of traditional Liberals and to the core values of this country.  “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”  That statement encapsulates the essence of our belief in free speech and the free and often passionate interchange of ideas along with the individual's right to hold and speak ideas with which others disagree.  This concept is essential to our democracy.  The Left, on the other hand, would ban all speech which they find offensive or which counters the speech necessary to their vision of what America should be. 

In this suppression of free speech and with it the freedom of individuality in speech, values, and ideas, the Left would eliminate the individual in furtherance of class solidarity.  The Left has contempt for all which does not further its goals.  Indeed, some would completely obliterate anything based on “Western Civilization” which does, indeed, hold most of the underlying principles of America:  morals, ethics, literature, artistic work, music, philosophy, religion.  These are all denounced in one way or another as the Left seeks to remake America.

To the Left, America is a capitalist horror filled only with people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.  While Liberals acknowledge that such mindsets exist, they will work to remove the effects of such negative attitudes within our current Constitutional, legal, and capitalist system.  Economically, Liberals' work will be more towards equality of opportunity rather than equality of result.  While Liberals will use the current democratic and capitalist systems to eliminate such things as economic gaps, the Left will ignore individual enterprise and turn to such things as redistribution of income and/or property promulgated by government fiat.

The democratic system of this country will always recognize individuality and with it the unreality of total sameness.  The Left, on the other hand, would envision absolutely no differences in economic or other results; that is, the Left strives for one unified class supervised by a government that holds and enforces Leftist ideals. The individual is lost to the dictates of a large and controlling government who will create what the Leftists (but perhaps not the people) will determine to be good.

No, Liberalism is not Leftism.  While both philosophies currently inhabit the Democrat party, they actually have very little in common.  They do however, both want to take the power of the presidency back from Donald Trump.   Frighteningly, they have joined forces in this; however, the Liberals have, in so doing, forgotten their core belief in and allegiance to this country.  The Left could care less.

This country, while always holding a variety of beliefs, including political, has always been generally united in the core support for the fundamental structure of our government.  That is no longer true.  The Left has a different mission, one not to support and improve America, but to totally destroy it.  They hate not only President Trump, but also his supporters, and every traditional value upon which this country was built.  They will not give up until they have eradicated them all and remade this country into something no longer recognizable as the shining beacon of individual freedoms and democracy.

That is the mission of the Left.  I do not believe that is the mission of Liberals or Conservatives or most Americans.  The mission of the Left is filled with hate and nihilism.  As the rest of us consider our New Year’s resolutions, we can make them ones of respect and tolerance and inclusion.  Rather than discarding all that is good in America simply because it is not perfect, we can make resolutions that improve and strengthen the already greatness of this country and all that it stands for.  We can make that our mission.  I hope that we do.