The Impeachment Show

So, tomorrow the Impeachment Show begins – live TV entertainment.  You may watch if you like that sort of thing – a crusade based on hatred of an individual, not unlike the bullying by the “in-crowd” against a successful outsider. This is a not so good sequel to the Russian Collusion show.  If you don’t realize that this is all just part of the ongoing coup/now revolution jihad then you have not been paying attention.

Yes, it is really that ridiculous, and if it weren’t so frightening for the survival of America and all for which it stands, then it would simply be a rather poor comedy.   But it is not.  Last month I wrote about how we were no longer in a coup, but now a revolution (LINK).  My final words (before quoting “Revolution) in that post were

America is under attack.  What was an angry outburst against election results has moved from a childish outburst to a coup and now a revolution - a full out challenge to the established political order, government, culture, and their related associations and structures.   This matters.  This is a challenge to every American.  And every American who is involved in this revolution needs to be very clear on what they are doing while those of us not involved need to do everything we can to educate those warriors and defend our country from their attack.

The revolution is going full force ahead.  The frightening results that we face as both individuals and as a nation are made woefully clear in an excellent piece by historian and scholar Victor David Hanson; LINK  .  His final lines in this essay read, “One side will say, “”Just give us more power and we will create heaven on earth.”” The other says ““Why would anyone wish to take their road to an Orwellian nightmare?”” The 2020 election is that simple.”

Why, you may ask, am I quoting something about the 2020 election when this post’s title and beginning are focused on impeachment?  The answer is very simple:  the Impeachment Show is nothing more than a Democrat campaign strategy to keep Donald Trump from being re-elected.  Anyone who examines the alleged evidence realizes there is just nothing there – nothing other than innuendo and gossip and perhaps some actual disagreement about policy.  But nothing impeachable.  Let me repeat that: NOTHING.  Just as there was nothing there in the Russian collusion show; nothing there in the Kavanaugh #metoo show, nothing there is the daily diatribes against the President.  NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

The Impeachment Show is a campaign strategy and part of the overarching campaign to remove the president from office (the original coup attempt) and now the broader campaign to completely remake this country (the ongoing revolution).  As a campaign strategy it allows the Democrats to justify not doing what the people sent them to Washington to do (things like pass laws that benefit the people and the country, debate important issues, etc.).  They are too busy with impeachment to do anything else, and so they justify a failure to serve the people who elected them.  And, by their doing nothing, the President’s agenda becomes stalled, so they can argue that he did not accomplish what he should.  Further, it allows Democrats to throw all sorts of dirt at the President and the Republican party – the sort that you see and usually object to in the ugliest campaign ads – claiming that they must release this hearsay and innuendo as part of an open impeachment.

Of course, you must realize that this is anything but an open and fair process.  The key witnesses are avowed anti-Trumpers who consult with Democrats before coming forward.  Adam Schiff (who salivates every time he even thinks about removing Trump from office) has been running and continues to run a Star Chamber sort of process.

For those not familiar with Star Chamber, it was a court process that existed in England from the 15^th to mid-17^th centuries.  While it was originally created to fairly enforce laws against socially and politically prominent and powerful people whom ordinary courts were reluctant to convict, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the abuse of the power it wielded.  Its proceedings were secretive and its judgments arbitrary.  It became an instrument of oppression rather than justice.

One can see why Schiff’s impeachment show is often linked to Star Chamber.  He is using what in the past has been generally a fair process and corrupting it to his purposes of removing the President from office, or failing that objective, of destroying his chances for re-election.  This is in effect both social and political oppression as it attempts to remove a duly seated president and overturn the will of the people with absolutely no valid legal basis for doing so. 

Until tomorrow the hearing has been in secret with even Republicans (and through them the people they represent) denied access.  Questions by Republicans have been disallowed.  Schiff met with the “whistleblower” before he became a whistleblower, and both are avid anti-Trumpers.  Schiff determines what witnesses can be called and which can be cross-examined.  He suggests written questions to the whistleblower instead of live testimony.  Yet it is a basic principle of American justice that one is allowed to face his accuser.  No one knows what went on in Schiff’s secret hearings – what Schiff may have said or how he may have coached witnesses.  His selectively leaked information must be viewed as tainting any future testimony and his ability to selectively allow or prevent witnesses and testimony makes the who process more of a show trial than an actual quest for justice.

The list goes on; you need only consult the daily outpouring of information.  The problem is, however, that the mainstream media fails to report much of what is happening if it even sounds, let alone is, averse to the Democrats’ position.  This is not surprising since they also fail to report the many positive accomplishments of the President for our country, or, when they do, they couch them within something portrayed as negative.

Those who hate the President will simply accept without question the narrative of the Democrats.  Yet, anyone who gives it the slightest thought will see how weak and contrived this impeachment claim is.  First, we don’t just give away taxpayer money to other countries without expecting something in return.  Any taxpayer who thinks we do should be screaming in objection. There is always some sort of exchange (“quid pro quo”) and hence that alone is certainly not an impeachable offense.

Second, the country has a valid interest in learning about foreign interference in our elections, and the President’s request that Ukraine investigate that was valid.  Similarly, if a sitting Vice President used his influence to benefit himself or a family member financially or to demand the firing of someone within a foreign country who was investigating his son, the country has a right to know about that and the President was within his right and it was his duty to ask the Ukraine to investigate. 

Third, if a sitting Vice President might now become a candidate for President, that does not negate the justification of investigating questionable acts made during his Vice-presidency. 

Fourth, there is absolutely no evidence of direct request for “quid-pro-quo” of aid for investigation, and certainly not simply for political reasons.  Indeed, not only the transcript reveals no quid pro quo, but also some very credible witnesses have clearly asserted there was no quid pro quo.

The bottom line is clear.  There is absolutely no evidence (unless you consider someone’s addition of their own narrative to actual concrete fact to be “evidence”) that the President asked for an investigation of his possible opponent in return for our foreign aid.   It just didn’t happen. 

What is happening is a group of people, led by Schiff, want to unseat a sitting president that they think the people should not have elected.  This has been their goal since 2016.  And the Impeachment Show is just their latest episode in their on-going drama.  Watch it for entertainment if you wish; but, understand that the underlying concept is based on hatred and malice the intent of which is to overthrow that which we know as America.  The Impeachment Show may look like a comedy, but if it is allowed to reach its sought-after conclusion, we will see that it was really both a horror show and a tragedy.

Time to Stand Up, Pick Your Side, and Speak Up

It is becoming fully apparent that the Democrats won’t rest until they have not only destroyed President Trump but have completely torn the Country apart as well.

We know why they have this need to destroy the President:  First, he won the election which they were “supposed to” win in 2016.  Now they are concerned that with his many promises kept, the booming economy, improved standing in the world, etc., that they will not be able to beat him in 2020, so they must destroy him one way or another before then.  And, of course, they just don’t like him – he is not like them, he is real, he says what he thinks, rather than play political games he’d rather just get things done.  His successes prove how ineffective the Democrats have been and how little they really care about the American people and their country.

So, the Democrats are willing to tear the country apart, destroy it perhaps beyond repair, just to regain their power and finish off the man whom they irrationally hate.

They are already well on their way to success.  The most obvious display of their irrationality is in their continuing obsession with the Mueller report.  They refuse to give up on their debunked Russia collusion story.  They defy well established law as they hold the Attorney General in contempt for following laws that prohibit the release of confidential grand jury testimony.   They would hold hearings after hearings after hearings for no legitimate purpose while the real business of the country, the business they were elected to attend to, goes unattended and ignored.

But there is more.  They have put the Constitution itself under attack.  They find several ways to silence those whose views do not agree with their own.  Conservative speakers are often excluded from a variety of events; those who support the President are shamed and attacked, both verbally and physically; those who serve the president are the subject of not only verbal and sometimes physical assault, but also of every possible legal assault as well.  Lawsuit upon lawsuit upon lawsuit is filed for any action with which the Democrats do not concur – no matter that it reflects the will of the people, thus slowing down action after action that would benefit this Country and its people.  Political correctness silences views and opinions that are not those which the Democrats approve – no matter that those opinions or observations may be necessary to have a full and objective discussion of an issue. 

Like little angry children who can’t accept compromise, the Democrats in essence keep yelling “It’s my way or the highway!”  They cannot accept the will of the people when it isn’t what they want.  This is not what our Constitution envisions; it is not the way our Democratic Republic works!

Democrats are trying to change the way our president is elected.  The loss of the electoral college would put far more power in the Democratic strongholds – large cities and liberal coastal states – leaving those in fly-over country with no real reason to even cast a vote. 

Their lack of understanding of the Constitution is startling at times.  Nancy Pelosi recently stated that Congress is the “superior branch” of government when she should know that all 3 branches are equal.  Democrats, in their goal to eliminate guns, compare them to cars which are licensed, ignoring the fact that while there is a Constitutional right to bear arms, there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. 

Democrats have lost respect for the protections that our Constitution provides against unreasonable search and seizure.  They disregard such concepts as “innocent until proven guilty.”  Rather, if they approve a narrative that proclaims someone guilty, they will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary.  The Constitution strives to treat all citizens equally; the Democrats would divide us based on a variety of identity characteristics as they pick favorites and those whom they condemn in their continuing games of identity politics.

In the same vein, the Democrats have forgotten that the Constitution protects our right to hold our own beliefs and be free to exercise them.  We hear anti-Christian and anti-Semetic sentiments, as well as anti-white and anti-other disfavored identity groups daily from the mouths of Democrats who should know better.  And, they further seek to rewrite history, eliminating what they don’t like, eliminating unpleasant aspects that we may not be proud of but from which we learned and evolved.  That is, they would eliminate part of what in the end makes us great.  And, what they do not seek to eliminate, they would rewrite to serve their own ends.

I do not mean to imply that Constitutional rights cannot be limited; they can when there is a compelling need to do so, but such restrictions are as narrow as possible.  The Constitution is the core of our Country.  It gives us our representative form of Democracy which allows every citizen to have a voice and in so doing protects us from mob rule of a pure Democracy or State control by a Socialist or Communistic structure.  The Democrats seemingly do not want us to have that protection. 

The Democrats are not going to give up in this war that they are waging on the President, our Country, and our way of life.  No one can stand on the side any longer.

I am reminded of the words of Pastor Niemoller, regarding his failure to speak up in Nazi Germany.  Beginning with the Jews he lists several groups that were subsequently and incremental purged, group after group. After stating each group, he confesses he did not speak up because he was not one of them.  The statement ends with the words “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

We are all in the shoes of Pastor Niemoller in the face of the Democrats.  Don’t let their double-speak and projections of their behavior onto that of their enemy fool you.  It is not Donald Trump or the Republicans who would destroy the Constitution and our Country; it is the Democrats who are doing so even as I write, and you read this.

A time comes when one must choose sides.  If not now, that time is fast approaching.  In choosing one must not be swayed by what is popular or pretty or immediately gratifying.  One must truly understand with whom they are choosing to stand and what their victory would mean, not just in the short term, but in the long view of the individual, our Constitution, our Country, and our way of life.

This is serious business.  And it demands a serious review of who we are and what our Nation stands for, and what will be lost if we do not stop the Democrats’ march to destroy it all.  The Democrats would prefer that no one take notice, that like blind sheep we ignore the wolf they have become in our midst.  Those who choose to do that, to simply sit back and assume all will be fine, must consider that when they have lost all that was, there will be no one left to speak for them.

Critical Thinking - A Lost Art

There are plenty of topics for a blog in today’s news:  the bias of the top people in Mueller’s investigation; their special treatment of Hillary and their being instrumental in the initial allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia; the use of the FBI by a sitting administration to conduct opposition research against political opponents;  whether the Mueller investigation has overreached; whether it has any legitimacy at all given the revelations of the past few days; Time’s choice of the hysteria-driven and victim-creating #MeToo as its person of the year;  recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the hypocrisy of the Democrats outcry against Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem when they supported it in the past; Conyer’s retirement and who will take his place; what SCOTUS will decide about whether a cake artist can be compelled to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs and whether his refusal to do so is unlawful discrimination against members of the LGBT community; the Tax bill; immigration; the actions of the deep state; and on and on and on.

But, today, this being my 100^th blog posting, I will talk about something else.  Something more important than even the most hysterical hysteria of the day.  Something the lack of which underlies much of the hysteria and news-as-entertainment we see today.   Today I will talk about thinking:   deep thinking, CRITICAL THINKING.  This is something that seems to have been lost in our country, and without it I don’t see how we can ever stop the daily hysteria and the havoc it causes to our country and our lives.

Critical thinking is simply the ability to objectively analyze facts or evidence in order to reach a conclusion or form a judgment.  The key here is the word “objective” meaning unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial, detached, dispassionate, and fair.  Critical thinking is performed by the one reaching the judgment or conclusion.  It requires clear and rational thinking.  And, it is sadly lacking today.

Critical thinking means that one questions everything, even their own beliefs.  One does not accept something just because someone else said it was true, even if that is a someone whom one respects or with whom one always agrees.   And, it means that one is able to distinguish between people themselves and the positions that they hold.   (That is, one may find an individual repulsive, but that does not mean that the individual’s agenda is also repulsive). 

In the last few days I have heard from individuals who support Democrat policies that anyone who does not support those polices is not only wrong, but an idiot as well.  I have heard parents ask how to tell their children that their teacher is “wrong” when the teacher has expressed or explained a viewpoint that runs counter to the viewpoint of the parents.  I have heard people say they will not even consider reading new or opinion pieces from sources labeled as holding political views to the right or left of their own.  I have heard people explain that it is too time consuming to read even a full synopsis of an issue or controversy, so they simply read the highlights as selected by their favorite news source, even if things such as quotes are distorted or otherwise misleading and taken out of context.  And, I regularly hear people adopt the conclusions and judgments presented to them by their favored source without any further inquiry or research.

These are all examples of the pervasive lack of critical thinking in our society.  Let’s look at these in more detail, beginning with the parent who thinks that he must tell his child that he is right and the teacher is wrong.  Not only is the parent not exercising critical thinking (not asking for details and context of what the teacher said), but the parent is not teaching or allowing his child to become a critical thinker.  Placing a child in an environment where one authority figure is always right does not teach a child to exercise her own mind and reach her own judgments.  A parent who expects a child to adopt all the parent’s beliefs unquestioned does not teach the child how to make her own judgments and decisions once the parent is no longer there.  In the instance where a parent finds a teacher or other pushing a viewpoint contrary to that of the parent, the better approach is to discuss, at an appropriate level for the child, the different ways of looking at the question. explain why the parents hold the belief they do, while accepting that others may hold other beliefs.  That allows the child to understand that there is more than one way of looking at something, that there may be a need to understand context or find further facts or evidence.  Even if the child is expected to accept and follow the parent’s view at that point in her life, it teaches the child about thinking, about the possibility of other views, and about tolerance of other views. 

Those are some notes for the parent, but I also have notes about the teachers and our education system.  From what I see, very little time is spent on teaching critical thinking skills.  Teachers seem to have no problem presenting their views and judgments as fact that the student either must accept, or will accept in order to please the teacher.   Emotional arguments and conclusions are accepted by teachers with no demand for logic or rational support.  Students are encouraged to express their feelings with little demand that their articulation be clear, organized, or well thought out.  Of course, logic, developing support, indeed, learning and thinking itself, are hard work.  There seems to be an aversion to the idea of work in school these days.  Rather, teachers want kids to have fun; they seem to seek friendship rather than respect from their students. And, we have placed upon teachers the burdens of parenting, social work, and other requirements that are not part of a teacher’s traditional duties or trained skills.

If we do not teach our children how to be critical thinkers, then we cannot expect to see critical thinking in our adult population.  If we train our children to simply accept the judgment of one or another authority figure then we cannot expect them to do otherwise as adults.  Thus, we have people who simply accept whatever superficial judgment sounds good to them without even seeing a need to do their own inquiry into the rationality and legitimacy of that position.   Looking more specifically at politics, we have people who support each and every position of their preferred party, without any thought or investigation.  We have people who support or oppose views simply because they like or do not like the individual who professes those views.  This is especially senseless in that it confuses an individual with an institution of which that individual is a part.   Every leader as an individual will have a variety of qualities that will generally be liked or disliked, but that individual’s administration and its policies should and will eventually be judged by different standards in the context of history (this assumes of course that those whose goal it is to erase history will not in the end succeed). 

Of course, the problem with all this is that we end up with two warring camps:  those who blindly accept the view of one side on an issue and those who blindly accept the opposing view.  Arguments about the issue devolve into calling the other side stupid, idiotic, or similar names because without critical thinking and its use to arrive at and thus understand the views one has adopted, one cannot really debate the issues themselves.  So, it becomes simply cults of personality and ad hominem attacks on those holding opposing views.

Sure, it would be easier to have clear cut right and wrong answers to every one of life’s issues.  But, life is far more complex.  And, in order to make sound judgments about the issues that face us as individuals and as society as a whole, we must be able to critically think about them.  We must take the time to fully learn the relevant facts and to fully educate ourselves about various and competing viewpoints.  We must each of us examine this body of evidence that relates to each issue upon with we have or would like to take a stand.  We must each arrive at our own understanding and our own conclusions, based on our own examination; we must not be content to simply accept that which we are told. 

When it comes to politics, our education must begin with a clear and objective understanding of the history and core principles of this country.  We must read and understand our Constitution as well as how it has been interpreted and applied throughout our history.  Before taking a position on a law or regulation we must fully understand if not entirely read the operative provisions of the rule and must understand the basis of differing views about the rule.  We must consider not simply the immediate effect or gratification but also the long-term consequences of what is done or not done.  And we must listen to full words and context when a politician speaks, not be content to have only the particular sound bite chosen by the nightly news or our preferred Twitter feed. 

Yes, this all asks a lot.  Making informed decisions takes time and effort.  But no one said that being a responsible citizen and a responsible adult is an easy task.  It is, however, a serious and a critical task.  Without critical thinking we are governed by emotion alone and our world becomes less rational and more angry.  Teachers and parents together must insure that children learn the skill and the joy of deep and critical thinking, and then as adults we must demand of ourselves and of others that we use those skills in making the important decisions and judgments that affect all of our lives.

Belief Does Not Equal Evidence

When you believe something strongly enough you will find evidence for it everywhere.  Perhaps that is what underlies the irrational and unbending political positions taken by some.  For example, if one believes that the president is a racist/bigot/white supremacist then one will see proof of that everywhere.  When he makes a bland statement that there are bad actors on both the left and the right that will be seen as an assertion of bigotry and support for the KKK.  Then, when he states that people should respect the flag, that will be taken as some sort of code directed to white nationalists.  When his travel ban is directed at some but not all Muslim majority countries it will nonetheless be seen as further proof of his anti-Muslim racism.  When he states his opinion that players who disrespect the flag should be fired that is interpreted as a fully anti-Black call to action.  So, as one mounts up this litany of “evidence” it is easy to become more and more convinced of the initial belief and now, when someone asks “where is the proof of your assertions that he is racist/bigoted/etc.?” the believer can point to these “facts.” They can delight in sharing statements by fellow believers that cite the same “evidence” as further proof that their own beliefs are accurate. The only problem is that these are not facts.  They are interpretations of often quite innocuous statements or of opinions that simply agree with that interpretation.  They prove nothing except that one is desperate to believe what he or she believes and have a reason to listen to no other points of view.

Here is the problem:  beliefs do not create evidence.  Instead, evidence supports beliefs.  Labeling something or someone as a particular thing does not make it so just because it fits into our subjective view of reality.

This is the same problem we see with the Russia investigation.  Many who could not accept that Trump could be legitimately elected found that the idea of his collusion with Russia to win would make a good justification for their disbelief as well as a possible way of overturning the election.   We now have nearly a year of investigation with absolutely no evidence of any such collusion.  The investigation broadens.  It looks to Trump’s business dealings of decades ago, finding anything to grasp at that can be interpreted as collusion.  Anything to support that dearly held belief, a belief that cannot be shaken despite the lack of actual evidence. 

When we let what we believe reshape what actually is we are not living in reality.  And, when one does not live in reality, one cannot realistically address the problems of reality, let alone find solutions to those problems.  Moreover, when one’s reality is nothing more than a reflection of their inner beliefs, they will likely be unwilling to entertain ideas that conflict with those beliefs because those contrary ideas are really an attack on what for them is their reality; it is an attack on themselves.  Such thinking is not rational (actually it is perhaps the result of not thinking at all, but rather of being led by emotion).

When one’s belief system structures and is the skeleton of one’s reality, any attack on that belief system is an attack on the person him or herself.  The believer must defend it at all cost, even when there are no actual facts, no evidence to support it.  They will interpret what is in a way that will support their structure.  Our beliefs are always to some extent and in some way self-serving.  But when they become the very core of our reality then we tend to lose the ability to question them or to be open to other ways of looking at things.  We lose the ability to have any sort of dialog with one who does not believe exactly as we do. 

We can all think of examples of mental illnesses that would be explained by this living in a world of beliefs rather than realities.  The problem is that when it comes to politics it seems that far too many are suffering from this malady.  In studying this sort of phenomena in today’s political landscape a researcher at Univ. of California stated, “What we’ve got is this contest of moral visions that has become a factual fight because of this tendency of people to change their factual beliefs to fit their moral inclinations.”

Our beliefs and the emotions that underlie them are not the same as facts or evidence.  When we confuse the two, when we create evidence from beliefs rather that beliefs from evidence, we are clouding what really is with our conceptional and emotional pictures of what we think it is or should be.  Of course, we all view reality somewhat subjectively and there is often more than one reasonable interpretation of a piece of evidence. But when we reach a point where we find it acceptable to ignore all reason, all rational input, in order to prop up a reality that we want and wish to be true, we are setting up a world full of antagonism between competing belief systems if not a world of complete chaos.

Just because one’s mind chooses to accept a proposition as reality does not make it so.  Reality is not simply subjective consciousness; it is made up of physical and objective facts.  Physical reality is perhaps not the only reality (philosophers and psychologists may debate this forever), but it is the reality that we all share and the one in which we must live together.  Of course we will all view that shared reality somewhat differently, and it is those rational but real different perceptions that can form the basis of deep and productive dialog.  These dialogs can lead to better understanding of one another as well as to genuine improvements to the shared reality.  But, with no shared reality we are really all left isolated in our individual belief systems, systems that respond only to our own control and that have little if anything to do with the shared world of objective and rational evidence.