Year of the Ox

Isn’t it appropriate that on the first day of the Lunar Year of the Ox, a year that brings us hard work and most importantly honesty, the lies and hoaxes of the Democrats are being exposed? 

The year of the Metal Ox, following the tumultuous and rambunctious year that is the mark of the Metal Rat, follows up on what the Rat hath wrought.  We now have a lunar year of yin – a calmness unlike the energy of the Rat’s yang.   The likeliness of upheaval and catastrophic events, often characteristics of a Metal Rat year, are far less likely in an Ox year.  The year of the Ox is a time to be thoughtful and to work out what the Rat hath wrought.

The year of the Ox represents hard work, positivity, and honesty.  It rewards hard work and effort, especially by those not demanding attention.  It rewards reliability and honesty.  It is the year when one works to finish or solve the things that were begun in the Year of the Rat.  The Ox year has the ability to transform negative challenges of the Rat that preceded it.

In the Year of the Ox, persuasion via pathos has little effectiveness.  Rather, logical and analytical thinking take a prime position.  Along with this, honesty comes to the forefront and is rewarded.

And so, it is appropriate that today in the Senate the impeachment trial turns to an exposing of the many lies put forth from the Democrats, not only in the previous days of this impeachment, but throughout the past 4 years. 

Today the Defense lawyers are playing full videos or other recordings of presentations that were previously edited and hence distorted by the Democrats in order to paint a false picture of Trump’s words and actions.  Not just the videos of Jan 6, but of things as old as the distortive editing of Trump’s words following Charlottesville – a distortive lie that has been repeated by Democrats since 2017.

The Defense is showing the words and actions of Democrats that are at least as, if not more, “inciteful” than those that the Democrats claim justify impeachment.  The Defense is proving the Democrat hypocrisy by proving that a large number of Democrats are guilty of what they accuse the former president of.

Today may be the first time that many networks have actually played (and hence that many people have actually seen) the full recordings that have previously been shown in their manipulated state.  The lies are all together being presented today, on the first day of this year in which honesty is honored. 

Of course, I doubt that the Democrats who have spent the last four years in hypocrisy and lying will have any inclination to honor, let alone actually be honest- with themselves or the American people. 

Nonetheless, I can hope that this Lunar Year of the Ox has some actual effect on the people who will perhaps turn to logical thought.  I can hope they will no longer rush to judgment based on pathos and emotion.  And, I can hope that in the process they will begin to reward honesty and no longer tolerate the duplicity and dishonesty that has become the trademark of the Democrats.

Why I’m Not Watching the Impeachment

I have better things to do with my time than to watch political theater when I’ve already seen the show before and fully understand its underlying themes. 

In this political theater version of The Impeachment Sequel, the Democrats continue to act out their very real mental disturbances caused by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  That, and they try to expel their insecurity-caused fear that Donald Trump may run for office again and so they must forever disqualify him.

In addition to being some sort of attempt at Trump hate catharsis, this Impeachment does serve other purposes such as distracting the populace from the many things that President Biden is doing that are potentially dangerous and harmful to this country.  It also shows us that the Democrats have no intention of losing their narrative method of distorting truth as a way to sway the public to their thinking.

For example, in a high-tech Hollywood-like video in which the Democrats replayed Trump’s words at the protest on Jan. 6, the film included his calls to fight for this country and the Constitution but conveniently left out the most important words in which President Trump called for the march and protest to be and remain peaceful. 

And, of course, there are the individual narratives (some would call them lies).  The now infamous and Hollywood like performance of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez about her “near-death experiences” on Jan. 6.  Or the statements by Maxine Waters (and similarly other Democrats) that she never uttered the words that most have seen or listened to on tape calling for violence against Trump and his supporters.

But then, such misleading presentations are not surprising when you are holding an impeachment that the majority of actual and leading Constitutional Law scholars in this country assert is not constitutional.  It is not surprising when the judge for the “trial” is also a partisan Democrat senator-participant who is firmly on record as believing Trump must be impeached.  

This is nothing more than a show trial.  There is nothing to see here unless your desire is to watch the Democrats display their disrespect for our Constitution, their pathological hate for one man, their hate for American ideals, and their disregard for the actual business of the people that they ought to be conducting.

Instead of the distraction of this political theatrical re-run, try considering some of what it is distracting you from.  There is so much; let me list just a few that you might have missed.

There is the walk-back of the promise of immediate jobs for the tens of thousands of pipeline and oil workers that Biden’s executive orders have put out of work.  When will jobs for these people who need to support themselves and families now become an actuality?  Oh, sometime in the future; no time soon, but it will be worth the wait his press secretary tells us.  Worth it for whom?  The workers’ starving children?  How can this not remind one of Stalin’s five-year plans that repeatedly promised the current sacrifice would be rewarded in the future?

There is the cancelling that continues in all spheres.  People silenced by social media, by their employers, and by new executive orders that are effective not only in current and present silencing, but in creating a fear that essentially works to silence the potential of future speech opposing Left views.  Again, we are reminded of Stalinist Russia where those who spoke out against the Soviet plan were threatened and harassed, sometimes beaten and arrested, expelled or put to death.  While we may not have gone as far as Great Terror Russia, the current silencing/censoring/cancelling from the political Left and its symbiotic partners serves to quash those who might otherwise speak out.

This instilling of fear is further amplified by such things as the recent Bank of America data share in which it provided the government with the names of ANYONE who, from their banking records, showed they were in DC on or around Jan. 6.  When the federal authorities asked, Bank of America turned over the results of its internal scan to federal authorities.  The profile requested and provided included: "1. Customers confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C. between 1/5 and 1/6. 2. Purchases made for Hotel/Airbnb RSVPs in DC, VA, and MD after 1/6. 3. Any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between 1/7 and their upcoming suspected stay in D.C. area around Inauguration Day. 4. Airline related purchases since 1/6."

That is, if you were visiting your mother and used your BOA card to buy a coffee and bagel on the morning of Jan. 6 you were reported to the feds by BOA, and they felt no restraints about their ability to call you in and question you as if you were a terrorist.   BOA apparently did not notify its customers they were being spied upon.  And indeed, people who had done nothing wrong other than being in DC on the 6^th were called in and interrogated before being cleared. 

If this does not give you the sense of some sort of a police state, then let me suggest that you also look at the militarized encampment that our capitol has become; an encampment not to protect the people, but to keep them from their government.

There are of course the many international proclamations and orders that have been made by President Biden, all with little thought or even time for consideration.  They are either simply a spiteful reversal of Trump policies, regardless of the pros or cons of those policies, or they are a response to Leftist demands that must be met immediately because they address some alleged “crisis” either of environment or immigration.  Yet even a cursory review of many of these actions by independent experts reveal that their long-term effects will be anything but good.

And, finally, let me mention the Time article that sets forth the collusion between politicians, big Tech and big Corporations to ensure the outcome of the election to be against Trump.  The article brags that this action was heroic because these people took it upon themselves to adjust the will of the people to ensure an outcome that they, not necessarily the people, favored.  And let me just suggest that any dictator similarly sees as heroic any actions that ensure his retention of power regardless of their suppression of the will of the people.

So, no, I am not watching the political theater.  I am hoping that it may finally assuage the irrational if not psychotic Trump-hatred, but I am pretty sure it will not.  I would rather reflect upon the above and many similar activities that the Left engages in right before our eyes.  My reflections include not only how they are destroying the good of this country, but also how to open the eyes of my fellow citizens to what is going on in this comedy that is really a tragedy for America.

An Impeachment of Arrogance and Cover

The article of impeachment will be delivered to the Senate Monday.  Sen. Schumer states the impeachment trial will begin the week of Feb. 8 – just in time to distract the country from the hellish effects of Biden’s executive orders and other actions that will start being felt by everyday Americans around then (e.g. pausing the lowered prescription drug pricing put into effect by President Trump;  or the tens of thousands of American jobs lost by canceling Keystone and resulting from many of his other early day actions;  or releasing all illegally present immigrants into our populace, whether or not charged with crimes, and untested during a pandemic while requiring Americans to follow even more restrictive guidelines). 

But, aside from its service as cover (assuming the mainstream media would even report any negative effects of Biden acts), the impeachment itself is a ridiculous and divisive act that can do nothing but damage this country. 

First, the Constitution (Art. II, section 4) provides the following regarding Impeachment:

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. 

Note that the punishment for an impeachment conviction is removal from office.  The fact that President Trump is no longer in office, having been removed by the vote of the people, makes the entire impeachment process moot.

But wait, many Democrats now state that the whole reason for this impeachment is to prevent Donald Trump from ever running for or holding office again.  I understand that many who have spent the last 4 years hating Donald Trump think that is a good idea.  But keep thinking.  In this country we are not told by the state or others in power whom we can vote for.  In America, the people make that decision.  As suggested by Marco Rubio, for those in political power to think they have the right to make that decision for us is the epitome of arrogance.

The other alleged justification for impeachment is “to hold the President accountable.”  This sham excuse has more holes than Swiss cheese.  First, as noted above, the “accountability” of impeachment is removal from office.  That is done.  If it is the alleged “incitement” for which accountability is sought, there are other legal avenues that are far better suited (as opposed to this political revenge of impeachment).  The actual rioters are being arrested, charged, and will face legal accountability for their crimes if proven.  If Donald Trump performed some illegal act, he too can be held legally accountable (and don’t assume that the Democrats won’t try every legal avenue to do so).

Of course, there is the ridiculous nature of the accusation itself.  As explained more thoroughly in an earlier post (HERE), Trump’s actions and words on January 6 come nowhere close to inciteful or violent language as defined by our laws; they instead demonstrate nothing more that a man exercising (however unwisely) a First Amendment right to free speech to which everyone, even the President of the United States, is entitled.

This also sets a horrible example and precedent for our nation.  This becomes a way to essentially overturn the results of future elections by allowing politicians, not the people, to determine who will and who will not be allowed to run for office.  This becomes too close to other forms of government, especially dictatorships, where predecessors are routinely attacked or otherwise punished for holding views contrary to the current power regime.  We should note that such punishments in one party regimes include imprisonment and death, things that many on the Left have actually and often called for against Donald Trump.

Think where this could lead.  Rand Paul asked if we would now impeach Bernie Sanders for using the “inciteful language” that prompted his supporter to shoot and almost kill Republican Congressman Steve Scalise.  There are many other “inciteful” speeches we could turn to given by Democrats prior to the assaults on our police officers, police and other government building during the many Leftist protests over the past year.  Should we impeach all of them?   What about our US Embassy in Russia that yesterday was tweeting and otherwise publicizing where and when to meet in a number of cities for protests and marches in support of  Russian opposition leader Alexi Navalny?  Were these inciteful attempts to incite insurrection against the current Russian leader and government?  And if so, what does that mean for our foreign relationships?

Beyond its objective ridiculosity and its long term potential to deeply wound our Constitution and our Republic, this impeachment will deepen the current divisions in our country that our President has claimed he will heal.  But, then, we are regularly learning that while we may have seen his call for “unity” to mean some sort of unification that included tolerance of diverse views, what it really means is a uniformity of thought that banishes any and all who speak in opposition to the current Administration’s approved views. 

This impeachment is an act of revenge and fear of the sort one expects to see in totalitarian regimes, but not in America.  The Democrats and the Left have hated Trump for 4 years and have attacked him 24/7 during that time.  This is one of their final opportunities for revenge, and they do not intend to let it go to waste.

It reveals the fear that complements the Left and Democrats’ lust for total (and totalitarian) power.  They fear the will of the people.  They fear one man because he was elected by the people and because he spoke out in everyday language about what he saw.  He was not one of their kind – the two-faced, back-stabbing politicians who use the people to gain power, but care nothing for those they use. 

Donald Trump spoke for the people, and half the country voted for him.  And that makes the Left afraid.  Because if the people are not subdued into complacency, they are a threat to a power structure that is not really for the people.  And the Democrats fear Donald Trump because he might keep the people awake.

This impeachment is really about arrogance and cover.  The arrogance of the Left that they can ignore our Republic, its Constitution, and its people, in order to silence what or whomever they see as a possible threat to their power.  And cover, because its timing will serve as a perfect distraction to the havoc that the Biden policies will be almost immediately effecting upon us. 

Impeachment or Vengeance?

Monday Nancy Pelosi intends to introduce articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.  Most Democrats support this move.  Republicans are somewhat split.

But does this move make sense?  Is it in keeping with Biden’s claim of being a unifier?  To answer that question one must go beyond the emotional hysteria and look at law and facts (though that emotional hysteria will come into the answer as well). (As to more on Biden’s unity, see my post from Jan. 9 HERE)

Most well-respected constitutional scholars who are asked will tell you that President Trump’s actions on January 6 do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  See for example Jonathan Turley HERE  or Alan Dershowitz HERE 

The standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio; it allows the government to criminalize speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Trump, in his typically bombastic fashion, never actually called for violence or riots. What he did is to urge his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the challenges being made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”  He ended his remarks by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to provide Republicans “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” He told the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

We should note that such sorts of marches and demonstrations frequently occur in DC when there is important legislative or legal business or decisions occurring.  There are often marches and demonstrations outside the Supreme Court when the Court is hearing a particularly important or divisive case.  Similar words are always heard during the speeches that precede such marches and demonstrations.

Dershowitz stated that while he personally disapproves of what Trump said in his Wednesday address, "it comes within core political speech, and to impeach a president for exercising his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution." 

Turley states, “There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”

Both Turley and Dershowitz believe that this impeachment would set dangerous precedents for the future.  "It would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party, and that’s not what impeachment or the 25th Amendment were intended to be."(Dershowitz).

Turley wrote:

“The damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous, however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very threat that the framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process of deliberative judgment, the reference to a snap impeachment is a contradiction. In this new system, guilt is not doubted and innocence is not deliberated. This would do to the Constitution what the violent rioters did to the Capitol and leave it in tatters.”

So, given this solid logic from these and other legal scholars, why then impeach?

I think it is nothing more than the culmination of the irrational hatred toward Donald Trump that we have seen for the last 4 years.  The Democrats for whatever reason have loathed Trump from the moment he became the 2016 candidate.  They have done everything in their power to remove him from office.  They have tried to block his policies.  They have kept their base riled up with animosity toward not only the President but his supporters as well. 

They do not want justice; they are not doing this for the country.  What the Democrats want is to destroy the President, to see him suffer.  I believe many would guillotine him in the public square if they could. 

Here is a thought from one of the few  Democrats in Congress able to be rational about this issue.  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) says she will introduce a bill to censure Trump.  A censure is a formal reprimand or statement of disapproval.  She states, "A censure resolution is the only way to send a bipartisan, bicameral message without delay to the country and the world that the United States is a nation of laws."

This makes sense.  While the President’s words were not criminal and do not support impeachment, while they were not violent or inciteful, many believe it would have been a wiser move if he had not given that speech.  So give him what is essentially a reprimand for doing so; that should satisfy anyone whose motive is justice and not retribution or revenge. 

The introduction of this bill for censure is a first step toward the unity that everyone claims they want for the country.  Voting for it instead of impeachment would go a far longer way toward that unity.  It would show us that rational minds prevail.

But the problem is it will not satisfy the irrational hatred that spews forth daily from most of the Left.  They want their pound of flesh (for what I am still not clear).  But we shall see.  Tomorrow will tell us what this is really about – justness or vengeance.   It will also show us how serious the Left is in their calls for peace, healing, and unity.

It Ain't Over Til It's Over

And this will never be over.

(The Scream by Edvard Munch)

Some reflections on the Impeachment Show.

Here are some brief thoughts on the Impeachment Trial itself along with what it tells us about the Democrats.

1.  To those who keep asserting that if there is some personal motive or gain then that makes an otherwise legal/unimpeachable act illegal/impeachable: My guess is that every official act/vote by the senators is done in part for personal gain or other personal motive (most likely for better re-election chances).  The actions of senators may be done for other reasons as well (to further policy they believe in & on which they campaigned for example) and the acts then are constitutional but to follow the reasoning of the Schiff crew, the fact that a senator might also place him/herself in a better position for an upcoming election would make the acts impeachable.  Essentially, to follow their logic, the entire Congress, both chambers, should all be impeached.

2.  Does no one understand how our system of justice works?  In a trial the prosecution or plaintiff brings a complaint.  If that complaint is insufficient, the case will be dismissed.  If after discovery (investigations, depositions of witnesses, etc.) the case is still insufficient to state a claim, then it will be dismissed.  During the period of discovery, some subpoenas as well as other discovery requests and even specific questions may be challenged and decisions on those challenges may be appealed.    Asserting one’s right to question the legitimacy of a discovery request is not an obstruction against the body that made the request. It is not some sort of cover-up.

Justice requires time and patience; its goal is to get it right, not to meet some deadline favorable to an upcoming election.

It is not the duty of the deciding body to find the witnesses and do the investigation.   Some trials will be decided on the pleadings and discovery alone.  Contrary to Ms. Pelosi, witnesses are not required at the trial for it to be a “real” trial.  When a case reaches its conclusion, with or without witnesses, if there is a decision that the defendant is acquitted, then that is a valid decision.

In this case, the House did its investigation, called its witnesses, etc. and determined they had an “overwhelming case” for impeachment.  They brought that to the Senate where, for the first time, the President was able to present his position.  It became clear that the House did not have even an arguable case.  It further became clear that new witnesses, while they might dislike the President and have negative things to say about him or his policies, had no relevant information about the charges brought to the Senate by the House.  Their testimony would be nothing more than a waste of time.  This is not some sort of cover-up, much as the Democrats would like it to be, but is simply an appropriate decision about their case.

3.  It ain’t over til it’s over, and this will never be over.   The Democrats will refuse to accept the acquittal just as they refused to accept the very through investigation and conclusions of the Mueller report, just as they refused to acknowledge evidence that disproved their 11^th hour me-too assault on Justice Kavanaugh, just as they have refused, since November of 2016, to accept Donald J. Trump as the duly elected and legitimate President of the United States of America.  They have yet to understand that their hatred of President Trump does not make him illegitimate, just as it does not make his policies with which they disagree illegal or his manner and leadership style in effectuating those policies unconstitutional.   

Yet, it is clear from the Democrats and their supportive media that they will continue to dig and dig for dirt that will give them the opportunity to try once again to remove the people’s choice from office.  They would rather do that than the business that they were elected to conduct.

4.  In the end, it’s the People’s decision.  You cannot impeach a President just because you don’t like him and you fear that he will continue to act in a manner you don’t like.  The way to fix that is to present an alternate candidate at the next election and let the People decide.  The Democrats seem to think that they know better than the voters who should be president and they are willing to usurp the People’s voice in order to install their choice into the Oval Office.  That is simply un-American.  It is indeed a coup attempt. 

5.  For this country to work, we must both understand and respect our Constitution and our laws.   As a lawyer I have been and continue to be appalled by the Democrats’ continuing disregard for our Constitution, our legal system, and this country’s core principles of justice.  They, of course, are doing it for very political reasons, all of which extend from their desire for power.  But even more appalling is that so many are willing to accept their distortions about our core principles and values, to accept their contempt for our Constitution and system of justice.  In part I blame this on a lack of education about these things; that, combined with a mainstream media that presents and supports the Democrat agenda rather than objective facts places our democracy in a precarious position indeed. 

I can only hope that as the dust from this ridiculous impeachment settles that the People will begin to realize what a farce it really was.  I can only hope that the People will begin to demand that their representatives begin doing their business rather than continuing to pursue their jihad of hate against the President as they seek to grab for themselves what is the People’s power.

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. 

An Open Letter

This is an open letter to House Democrats that I share here, hoping it will be read and shared by anyone who cares about the future of our country.

Dear House Democrats,

I ask that before you vote on impeachment next week that you put on your objective thinking caps.  I realize that this entire impeachment is the culmination of 3+ years of hatred directed at the President, but I ask that you stop and consider what your vote will mean.

I understand that many people find Donald Trump’s style to be abrasive and unconventional as far as the politicians and leaders that we are used to.  They dislike his direct and colorful speaking style, his tweets, his ability to say what he thinks in plain language without the niceties and falsities of typical politi-speak.  This may be enough for some people to hate him.  It is not, however, enough or a justifiable reason to impeach him.

I understand that he embarrasses many Democrats, first because he, an outsider, bested them in the 2016 election.  On top of that he continues as president to do things that they have only perhaps promised or dreamt of:  keep his campaign promises; improve the economy; record low unemployment; improved standing in the world; prison reform; equal and consistent enforcement of laws; standing up to the deep state; refusing to let unelected bureaucrats make policy and other decisions that it is his responsibility as the people’s elected choice to make.  He is doing what the people elected him to do, and his success embarrasses many Democrats. 

I understand that the feeling of embarrassment alerts one to one’s own failures.  It hurts and it can lead to a hatred of the one who has embarrassed you.  It is not, however, enough or a justifiable reason to impeach that person.

I understand that most Democrats do not like many of the President’s policies.  That is not abnormal:  the losing party usually advocates for different policies than the winning party.   That is what elections are all about:  the people side with one set of policies or another and in the instant case the policies of Donald Trump won.   That the people did not side with your policies does not make them stupid as many of your fellow Democrats assert.  The President, elected by the people, has both the power and the duty to enforce his policies; it is not an abuse of power for him to do so.  You may hate those policies and hate him for the way in which he enforces them, but that is not a justifiable reason to impeach him.

I understand that you cannot wait until the day that this President is no longer in office.  The way to accomplish that is to present to the people a reason why they should vote for policies that you are presenting rather than for his.  The office of president should not be based upon some sort of likeability/personality contest.  And dislike of personality is not a valid basis for impeachment.

I understand that the Democrats have seized impeachment as a way to rid themselves of this strong president, but there really is no valid basis to do so; its use here is a violation of every core value upon which this country is based.  

I listened to the hearings (both Intelligence and Judiciary committees) and it struck me that your Democrat colleagues all spoke with passion and emotion along with personal narrative about their distaste of the President and his actions.  But if you listened to the more rational and logical presentations of the minority, you cannot deny that there simply are no facts upon which to base these impeachment charges aside from personal distaste for the President, his personality and style, and his policies.  

The Democrats like to call personal opinion and hearsay “fact” and in a sense it is – there is a fact that person X has an opinion.  But that opinion is not a fact of what happened.  And the actual event facts necessary for impeachment are simply not there.

Indeed, many of the facts on which the Democrats base their more general hatred of the President and his supporters are nothing more than opinions or their interpretations or predictions or speculations of what words meant, not what they actually were.  The hatred stems from negative labeling or interpretation of actions or policies that do not conform with those that your party approves.  

It is this dislike of someone who behaves and believes differently than what is endorsed by Democrats that has led to a 3+ year campaign of daily attacks against the President and his supporters.  And, as Democrats realize that they may lose the 2020 election, they bring their dream of impeachment to the House floor in their desperate attempt to subvert the will of the people, not only in 2016 but in 2020 as well.

As you cast your vote on impeachment next week, you have the opportunity to not only halt the farce that this impeachment has become, you can also show this country that you have an objective and clear mind, that you can think rationally and for yourself, that you can overcome personal emotion and stand for what is not only right, but necessary to preserve the future of our country.

I know that the Democrats love to assert that they are somehow protecting the country and Constitution with this impeachment.  But that is a false and frightening talking point.  The Democrats have already displayed a shameful disregard of the Constitution in the manner in which the impeachment inquiry and committee hearings were held.  Not only has the disregard of Constitutional mandates and protections been rampant along with disregard and disrespect for laws, rules, and procedures, but also underlying the entire impeachment charade is an egregious disregard of the core principle of our democracy that it is the people who choose, via their vote for president, what policies they want pursued. 

A vote for these sham articles of impeachment is a vote to overturn the will of the people and with it our democracy itself, for such a vote will forever destroy the ability of the office of president to truly represent the people who have elected its inhabitant.

So, I urge you to put your personal (or party) hatred of Donald Trump aside, to put aside your dislike of his policies or your belief that you have better ideas and policies.  I urge you to look objectively at the evidence or lack thereof.  I urge you to consider what your Democrat party is doing to the country with this absurd impeachment crusade.   You took an oath not to your Party but to our country and our Constitution.  I believe that if you put emotion aside, clear your head, and use your thoughtful brain that you will understand how misplaced a vote for impeachment would be. 

For the good of the country you simply must vote NO.

Articles of Impeachment – Some Initial Thoughts

So the Democrats have drafted their Articles of Impeachment, charging the President with Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice.  They continue, like children, to act out their anger and hatred of the President.  Indeed, other than their hatred of the President with which they twist facts and their own impressions to create evidence of their complaints, the Democrats have little support for such charges.

Let us, however, consider where these charges should really lie.  There is far more evidence against the Democrats.

Here are just some of the Democrats’ Abuses of Power:

• Charging someone with a crime without evidence and only for political gain.
• The Democrats now admit that their impeachment of the President is a political move.
• The Democrats have had the charge of impeachment on the table since Jan. 2017; they have simply been searching for a crime and still do not have the evidence, but do have the need to impeach to try to keep the President from being reelected (many have stated that if they do not impeach him, Donald Trump will be re-elected).

• They are ignoring and violating laws, rules, and the Constitution.

• They deny due process to the President during their impeachment “investigations.”
• For example, Adam Schiff hides evidence, denies Republicans the ability to call witnesses,  and subpoenas the phone records of his Republican opponents without any reasonable reason for doing so.

• The Inspector General report released yesterday tells us that Adam Schiff’s  2018 memo vilifying Republican Devin Nunes and others and defending the Steele dossier and FBI tactics (and adored by media) was riddled with lies and false statements.

• Refusal, since the 2016 election results were declared, to accept the will of the people and abide by their electoral decision. Refusal to do their sworn Constitutional duty and respect and support that decision along with the executive branch of government and the office of president.

• This is a show trial to destroy an opponent, nothing more.

And, some examples of the Democrats’ Obstruction of Justice:

• Again, refusal to allow witnesses and minority presentations at their impeachment “investigations.”

• Meeting with the “whistle blower” before he came forward in an attempt to use him to create a case against the President, then refusing to call the whistle-blower as a witness, falsely stating that to do so would violate laws, and then stating that he and his testimony are not relevant (to a charge based upon allegations by the whistle-blower!)

• Repeatedly leaking various and often misleading information to the press in an attempt to sway public opinion in their favor and against the President.

• Refusal of Adam Schiff to testify or to release full transcripts of his secret “witness” interviews regarding impeachment.

• Adam Schiff’s reading and entry into the House record of a fake transcript of the Ukraine phone call.

• The many FISA abuses outlined in the just released Inspector General report, all attempts to create a crime where one did not exist so as to be able to charge and convict the President.

• The rush to impeachment itself – denying the ability to have full investigations in what is a serious matter for the country.

• This is not justice but another act in the continuing endeavor to effect a coup and overturn the results of an election.

The above lists only begin to scratch the surface of the abuses by the Democrats.

This is now all out war.  The blood thirsty Democrats move in for the kill – not only of the man they hate but also, with him, of America as we know it. It is not Constructional. This is not right.  It is not fair.  It is not justice.      

The Democrats are playing a dangerous game.  A game that can easily destroy America.

I don’t know if Democrats really believe their press statements.  I can’t believe that any rational person would.  I don’t know if they are simply overcome with hatred as it seems, so that their sole obsession is to remove a man they hate simply because he bested them in 2016, giving the country and the people who elected him policies that are making America strong in so many ways, accomplishing so much that Democrats have promised for years but been unable to deliver.  I don’t know if it is simply about power and their insatiable thirst for it.  I don’t know if they really hate America and its greatness.  I just don’t know what or why they are doing this.  But what I do know is that they must be stopped.

This is no longer about Donald Trump.  It is about our country and whether or not we want it to continue to survive along with its Constitutional values and protections that have given greatness not only to the people of America but as a shining example to the world. 

Presidents come and go.  We the people see to that via our voices in the election booths.  But our principles, our laws, our Constitution, our values all remain.  Allowing the Democrats to subvert that system for their own hate and power subverts our entire system and moves us far closer to a form of dictatorship than democracy. 

The Impeachment Show is a selfish presentation by selfish people who think they are better than the rest of us and therefore should be given the power to decide for us whom we should have elected.  I stand firmly against that view and I hope that others do the same.