On Law and Freedom

“A government of laws, and not of men.”

       – John Adams, Novanglus Essays, No. 7.

This quote keeps coming to mind as I listen to the cacophony of voices objecting to the separation of minor children from parents at the border.  The rhetoric is for the most part directed at the President as the name calling cast his way becomes more and more horrific.    I understand that when people are shown a picture of a crying 2 year old allegedly about to be separated from her mother that there is something wrong with their hearts if they do not ache for the poor child.  But, that heartache does not mean that we should not enforce our country’s laws.

Let’s take a breath for a moment and consider the facts.  John Adams also wrote  “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, or inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, Dec. 4, 1770).

So, what are some of the facts relevant to the separation of children from their parents?  First, we have immigration laws that prohibit illegal border crossings.    When adults illegally cross the border, they are placed in an adult detention center until it can be determined if they have a justifiable reason for entering the United States.  If not, they are returned to their side of the border.  If they have children with them those children are not placed in the adult detention center (would you really want that crying 2 year old or any other child placed in adult detention where a variety of criminals are also residing?).   Instead, those children are placed in a facility specifically designed for them.  No, it’s not home, but it has clean beds, activities, 3 square meals a day.  It is safe for a child until he or she can be reunited with his or her parents.   (We should also note that not all children placed in these centers crossed with their parents or other family members; some were unaccompanied minors and some were with adults unrelated to them who were crossing with the children for a variety of reasons, some very questionable at best).

It may seem cruel to separate these children from their parents, but this is simply a result of enforcing laws that are on the books.  No one complains when someone is placed in detention for breaking other laws and when so placed is separated from their child.  When someone breaks the law there are consequences and, when that someone has minor children then those children will likely suffer some of those consequences. 

And let’s also not forget that the parents of these children are knowingly committing an illegal act and choosing to bring their children into that illegal situation with all of its consequences.  These parents could choose to follow the legal immigration procedures and in so doing not subject their children to the possibility of separation from their parents.

Does this sound cold?  Perhaps so, but actually it is far fairer and more in line with our government and its freedoms than is an inconsistent enforcement of law.  For, when only some laws are enforced, then we become not a government of law, but of men.  And, when we let one or another decide which laws to enforce, or against whom those laws will be enforced, then we are turning over our power and our freedom.

This idea of the rule of law and its connection to freedom is not new.  John Locke wrote that freedom means being subject only to laws made by a legislative body that apply to everyone. (“The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it” Second Treatise of Government, 1690). Aristotle wrote that “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.” (Politics, Book 3) The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “rule of law” includes “the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject of publicly disclosed legal codes and procedures.”

John Adams first wrote the phrase “a government of laws and not men” in an essay published in the Boston Gazette in 1775.  In 1780 the Massachusetts Constitution used the phrase in the section outlining the separation of powers.   More recently, the term occurred in  the 1996 State of the Union Address  when President Clinton used the phrase in the context of immigration.  He spoke of his administrations “strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders,” and then stated, “We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.”

We have a legislative branch of government which writes the laws.  The legislators are the duly elected representatives of the people of this country.  Once those laws are enacted we should be able to expect that they will all be enforced and enforced equally.  It is the job of the executive branch of our government to enforce those laws.  It is not up to the executive branch to decide which laws it will and which it will not enforce.  It we allow our executive to do that, then we are turning over our power to one person or group to rule us, perhaps at their whim, but even if done with what we see as compassion it is far more in line with an autocratic rather than democratic form of government.   It is this rule by a select or elite few and their ability to unfairly and arbitrarily apply rules that our founders hoped to protect us from as they created our Constitution and its separation of powers.   

So, next time you see the crying 2 year old, or hear the anti-Trump verbiage about his not stopping the separation of families at the border, remember that all he and the executive branch are doing is enforcing the laws – all of them.   They are doing their jobs.   It is not his or the executive branch’s place in our democratic republic to pick and choose which laws to enforce.  And really, is that a power that you would hand to any president?  That is, would you really rather have a government of men than of law?  A government where the ones in power could select what laws apply and to whom?

If you do not like a particular law, then demand that your legislators rewrite it.  Do not ask that it be ignored.  If the laws are subjectively enforced, then we no longer have a government of laws, but of a selective few who hold power at any given moment.  Wouldn’t you rather have a government in which the people, through their designated representatives in Congress, make the laws and then trust that the executive branch will enforce ALL those laws and apply them equally.    For that is what freedom is.   And that is why I stand behind the full enforcement of all the laws, even when it separates a mother from her child.

Depth of Thought – The Cake Case

For years many have been watching and arguing about the case of the Colorado baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The case has been wending its way through the courts and outside of that process the arguments have, for the most part consisted simply of a re-articulation of one or more of the following phrases: “gays are protected/gays have rights”; “religion is protected/its expression is a right”; “gays are good/bad”; “religion is good/bad.” The line between two sides was well marked and as a result there was no hope of real communication or understanding, let alone any resolution.

Enter the Supreme Court of the United States and its final decision in the case issued this morning.  While the decision may not resolve the entire debate, and I am sure that folks will now begin a debate about the opinion itself, what that opinion also does is give us a good example of depth of thought and understanding.

Here is a link to the full opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.   I encourage everyone to read it.

Actually, the full opinion/decision consists of several opinions.  Justice Kennedy wrote and delivered the opinion and judgement of the court with which Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined.  Justice Kagen also wrote a concurring opinion (an opinion which agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the majority, but for different or additional reasons) with which Justice Breyer agreed.   Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion with which Justice Alito agreed.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part and concurred with the judgement; Justice Gorsuch joined that opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion (one which disagrees with the holding/ultimate judgment of the court) and Justice Sotomayor joined in that dissent.

This may seem like a lot of opinions about one case and one might wonder why, instead of 59 pages the Court can’t simply state that the bakeshop won 7-2.  

We need these 59 pages for many reasons.  Following is the one that is the point of this blog.

These opinions, while displaying a depth of thought about and understanding of the issues involved in the case, also underscore the complexity of those issues.  Each opinion explains the basis of the author’s position and why, in that author’s opinion that position is superior to other differing yet also reasonable positions.  They reveal each author’s attempt to understand the complexities of the issues involved as well as to understand the reasoning behind each position on those issues.  These opinions are, in effect, a written dialog between the members of the court in which they present their understanding and support for their positions while listening to and respectfully responding to differing understandings.

This decision puts to rest the particular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but, this and other debates over this and other issues will undoubtedly continue.  What we all can learn from this opinion is that issues are far more complex than day to day rhetoric and sound bites allow.  In this opinion we have an example of the depth of understanding that we all should make an effort to achieve on all issues. 

It is only with respect for and understanding of opposing views such as we see displayed in this decision that we can ever have a true dialog which, if not able to completely resolve an issue at least allows us to continue a reasonable, respectful, and rational dialog rather that simply engaging in hate-filled debate.  Taking sides and throwing about rhetorical solutions solves nothing.  Depth of understanding and an open dialog which includes both explanation of the support for one’s assertions along with an open-mindedness to understanding of opposing reasoning is the only way that a free society can truly move forward and ultimately resolve the many issues with which it is faced.

So, read the opinion.   Whether or not you agree with the Court’s decision in this particular case, read this opinion as an example of how one can support one’s position with more than simple buzz words and phrases.  Read the opinion as an example of the sort of explanation and support that gives strength to the assertion of any particular conclusion. 

We are not all Supreme Court Justices, but we can all use this opinion as a model for our own discussions with others on issues and as a model for the type of understanding that we should strive for before asserting a particular position on an issue. When faced with someone with whom you disagree, try to emulate the sort of respect, discussion, and understanding that is apparent in the opinion.  Obviously, it requires work to reach this level of understanding about any issue, but that work is far more productive and positive than simply shouting down and not even listening to those who disagree.  Let depth of thought be our goal for it will lead to understanding and real dialog.

Jobs Report, Politicians, and Courage

Today the monthly job report for May was good news for anyone looking for work in this country.  The economy added about 223,000 net new jobs in May and the jobless rate hit an 18 year low at 3.8 percent.

This should please anyone who cares about the well-being of this country and its people.  Yet, in checking my afternoon news feed, the first headline I see is: “May Jobs Report is Great News for Everyone Except Democrats” and similar stories focused on how this will affect Democrat chances in November.

And therein lies a huge problem in this country.  Rather than caring about the well-being of the country, too many politicians care more about their own political success and power.  Rather than support and cheer successes of opponents when those successes are good for America, they prefer to cheer only when their opponent fails, not realizing that a failure of any politician, even an opponent, is a failure for the country if the opponent was working for the country's good. 

People, and especially the majority of politicians, take sides and rigidly sit there, attacking successes of those not in their own party and cheering failures of their opponents.  Am I crazy to think that there was once a time when people actually cared about the country, a time where politicians put that country first and above any particular party?

Currently in my state there is a race for Congressional Representative (the seat will be open because the current incumbent, a Democrat, is running for a different office, so the field is wide open).  The primary will take place next week and there are currently 5 (there were 6) Democrats vying for the chance to represent their party in the November election.  One would hope that any one of these people, if ultimately elected, would represent all the people of the District upon their arrival in Washington.  This, however, is likely not the case.

In a debate last month, the first question put to the field of 6 candidates was whether they would stand with the Democratic party and vote to impeach the president.  The first 4 answers were basically a simple “Yes.”  A fifth was more of a “yes, eventually.”  Only one candidate gave the thoughtful answer that he would want to let any investigation play out and then review all the facts before arriving at a decision on this issue.  Responses to most other questions followed a similar pattern.  Of course, the candidate whose answers were deep, thoughtful, and not just a regurgitation of party line is running behind in the polls. 

These 5 (previously 6) candidates are a microcosm of problems with politics and political leadership today.  Most simply say they will make things better or take care of this or that problem but provide no concrete plan of how they will do so.  Many voters seem to be willing to accept platitudes without more.  Most (candidates and voters) fail to see the depth and interconnections of many issues.  They seem to accept party rhetoric without thought or investigation of actual facts.  Many are playing the identity politics game:  the woman, the Native American, the son of immigrants, the homosexual.  While they (and many of their followers) may think that alone is a reason to vote for them, I would prefer to vote for someone for less superficial and more substantive reasons.  I would prefer to vote for a candidate with the courage to think for him or herself.

Sadly, across America we have candidates and voters who are willing to make major decisions based on such superficiality.  I realize it takes work to understand the duties of a particular elected office and to research and understand the substantive abilities and qualities of a candidate.  But this is work that it is any American’s responsibility to undertake.

Today we have many elected representatives not representing the entire body of their constituents, but rather representing their party.  Now it is fine to run on a party ticket; that allows voters to understand generally how the candidate will lean on various issues.  But, once elected, the representative is supposed to represent the people of the district – all the people – and not just those who are members of the same party.  But, because a majority of our politicians don’t seem to understand that, we have little more than robots in Congress:  individuals who fail to think for themselves but simple repeat and vote for the party line, regardless of whether that is best for their district or for the country.

And what is the result?  The answer is what we see daily:  two sides securely dug in, unwilling to actually carry on a dialog with those with opposing views and seemingly only capable of name-calling and otherwise attacking those who do not walk in lock-step with their and their party’s rhetoric.

I, personally, see this problem far more entrenched in the Democrats.  Perhaps that is simply because they are currently out of power or still looking to unseat the duly elected president whose election so shocked them to the point that many still think of him as illegitimate.  I don’t know.  But I do know that when we see things like Democrats being upset with a very positive jobs report, when we see them so focused on finding something – anything (as they grasp at straws) – with which to charge the president, when we see them and their supportive MSM ignoring the many accomplishments of this administration and/or actively tearing them down, then I do know that when I see this I become dismayed about the future of our country.   

So, today I will pray that there will be some Democrats, even those facing elections in November, who will have the courage to stand and applaud this jobs report along with other accomplishments of this administration that are positive for our country.  I will pray for the courage of politicians to care more about the country than their party of themselves.

(Note:  the specific election to which I refer above is that for Congressional District One in New Mexico; the candidate that I see as having courage to think for himself and go beyond mere party rhetoric is Paul Moya).

On Speech, Values, and Roseanne

I stopped writing this blog about 6 months ago in part because a busy life got in the way and in part because I assumed that after a year people could see the things I was observing and writing about for themselves.   Well, that assumption proved erroneous.  So, while the busy life continues, I return to the blog in the hopes of waking even one person from the stupor that lack of independent and critical thinking creates.

Today is about free speech or lack thereof along with a definition of racism.  Let’s begin with that definition:  Racism is defined as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”  Someone is a racist when the show or feel “discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another”.   Disagreeing with an individual of another race is not racism, although of course someone who is a racist might disagree with a particular of another race.  But, it does not follow that everyone who does so is a racist.  Similarly, name calling does not necessarily prove racism or that someone is a racist; it is often simply a reflection of someone’s poor judgement or bad behavior.  That is so even when the name-calling includes words that are racially sensitive generally or to the particular individual against whom the name is directed. 

Now that those definitions have been clarified, lets turn to the topic of free speech.  It is on my mind today because of ABC’s cancellation of the show Roseanne for the star’s personal tweet which the network called  “abhorrent” but which social media labeled “racist.”  The tweets addressed both Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s aide) and Chelsea Clinton. While it is not clear what is being called racist, I am assuming that it is her statement that Jarett is like “the muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby.”  Ugly, yes.  I personally don’t see this as a racist statement, though I guess that some will find the word “ape” in any sentence associated with a black person to be racist.   (Of course, the Apes in planet of the apes were pretty intelligent, one might recall).  Perhaps it is instead the reference to the Muslim brotherhood since Jarett was born in Iran?  Roseanne almost immediately apologized for making a “bad joke about her politics and her looks….my joke was in bad taste.”  Yes, it was. 

But was it really any more abhorrent than Jimmy Kimmel making fun of Melania Trump’s accent – not as a private individual but on his ABC television show?  Wasn’t that not only a “joke” about Melania but also a derogatory statement about all immigrants?  Kimmel also later apologized for his “bad joke.” 

So, we have two “jokes” attacking individuals associated with a political perspective contrary to that of the person making the joke.  One puts her joke on Twitter, then almost immediately apologizes.  The other broadcasts his joke from his TV show and then doubles down on it before ultimately apologizing.  One “joke” was clearly directed at (the parentage) of just one individual.  The other was arguably directed at an entire group of people. Both individuals have shows on ABC and the Melania joke was broadcast on that ABC show.  One gets fired, the other doesn’t.

There are some differences between the two “jokes”, but they are similar enough that one would think that ABC’s treatment of them would also be similar.  Yet, Roseanne’s show is cancelled, Kimmel’s is not.  In cancelling Roseanne, ABC stated that Roseanne’s Twitter statement was “inconsistent with our values.” I am at a loss to understand why Kimmel’s on air jokes about Melania are not also inconsistent with the network’s values along with his and many other ABC personnel statements that make personal attacks about those associated with Trump (I am not referring to attacks on the substance of policies, etc, but rather to personal attacks on appearance, etc., or simply unfounded name calling). Perhaps I just don’t understand ABC’s definition for its “values.”

So, this leads me to more general comments on the idea of free speech. 

First, yes, there is a right to free speech, but that does not mean that it is always right to exercise it.  Common decency should cause one to restrain oneself from uttering every single speech that might be allowable under the Constitution.  There is no need to make fun of how someone looks or talks, and it is simply polite not to do so.  There is no need to make fun of everyone one disagrees with, no need to hold up the severed head of the president, even jokingly.  There is no need to use the right of free speech to attack everyone and everything that one disagrees with.  It would be far better to instead use speech to open a dialogue with those with differing views.

Secondly, the right of free speech does not just pertain to accepted or popular speech.  It does not pertain just to politically correct speech.  Many today seem to think it is perfectly OK to shout down or otherwise censor speech with which they do not agree.  Yet it is that free market place of ideas and opposing views, freely spoken and discussed, which are the mark of a truly free society.

So, back to ABC.  It seems that they have chosen to punish someone who speaks from a point of view with which they do not agree, yet if not reward, at least not punish someone whose political positions reflect their own.  If these are the values that ABC lauds as its justification for the cancellation of Roseanne, then they are, in the opinion of this author, worthless and false morals that do not reflect the ideals of this country but which instead support the denial of free speech that moves us ever further from our freedom.

Thoughts on the Memo

The summary memo, written by Rep. Nunes regarding abuses at the DOJ and FBI was declassified and released yesterday.  Quite frankly, I was not shocked or even surprised by its contents since I have (sadly) come to accept that many establishment leaders lie, mislead, and care little for our laws or Constitution. What was, however, interesting to observe and reflect upon was the many reactions to the memo, both before and after its release.

It is important to remember as we reflect upon the memo and the reactions to it that when the FBI initially reviewed the memo it stated that there were no inaccuracies in the memo.

That review and statement by the FBI would seem to negate many of the Democrat assertions that the memo is full of lies.  Of course, as Alan Dershowitz has stated, we will never know for sure unless and until we actually see the underlying documents – the affidavits that led to the FISA warrents.  As Prof. Dershowitz has stated, this requires further investigation.

There was a time when I would have relied upon the media to conduct much of that investigation.  I grew up reading the reports of Woodward and Bernstein and the Watergate investigations.  That was a time when the press sought to uncover and bring information to light and to the people, and when they did it as a part of their duty to duty to inform the people rather than to further a particular political agenda.  Thus, their complicity in cover-ups and hiding or ignoring information is hard for me to accept.  Yet, their agenda is the Russia investigation as it can be used to damage Trump and so this memo and the civil liberties violations as well as any questions it may raise about the basis for some of Mr. Mueller’s evidence that it reveals is not of importance to them, especially when those violations were perpetrated by individuals aligned with the Democrat party.

But, let’s back up and consider the Democrat (and media) hysteria prior to the memo’s release.  To hear them, one would think that the world would come to an end if the people were to see this memo.  They told us it was full of lies (remember, the FBI itself stated no inaccuracies);  they said that it was an attack on not only the entire FBI, but the entire intelligence community (yet, as I read it, the memo singles out a few select individuals who did not live up to the high quality behavior that generally exists in the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community); the Democrats asserted that if the memo was released the people would not understand it (just another example of their disdain and disrespect for the people of this country). 

Note to Democrats:  the world did not end yesterday when the memo was released.  The people of the country are perfectly capable of reading it for what it is:  a statement of evidence that supports a finding of grievous violations by specific individuals within the FBI.  This is something that the people of this country have a right to know about.    And, we should all be asking if this is the extend of such violations or if they are or were more pervasive.

This memo is not about the Mueller investigation.  To the Republicans and Trump supporters who think it demands that investigation end, the memo does not do that (although, in my opinion, the investigation should end for many other reasons, but that is a subject for another post).  And the Democrats who think this is some sort of devious attempt to get rid of Mueller are wrong (perhaps they are the ones who are too stupid to read or understand the memo!)

The memo simply summarizes certain facts garnered by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence through their ongoing investigation into the DOJ and FBI and their use of FISA surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign and election.  Again, we must remember that upon reading the memo prior to its release the FBI stated there were no inaccuracies. 

The memo is not an attack on the FBI, but simply reveals the corrupt actions of a few in power there:  corrupt actions that should be brought to light for the sake of the many good and dedicated people and public servants at the FBI.  I cannot fathom why this information should not be released to the people of this country.  We the people can read it for what it is and come to our own conclusions.  And, if we read the memo with an unbiased mind and with no political agenda we can see exactly what it says and what it does not say.

The memo tells us that there is evidence that supports conclusions that specific high-level individuals within our FBI and Justice systems lied to and withheld relevant information from the FISA Court in order to obtain warrants for surveillance of American citizens.  It tells us that unverified and unreliable partisan political documents formed the basis for warrant requests and the partisan basis was withheld from the Court.  The Deputy Director of FBI testified to the Committee that no surveillance warrant would have been sought without the unverified information that was nonetheless used to obtain the warrants.  The memo tells us that there were at least four opportunities for the FBI/DOJ to provide accurate information to the Court, yet that information was omitted.  The memo also tells us that certain high-level individuals with clear anti-Trump biases orchestrated leaks to the media intended to be harmful to Trump and/or helpful to the Democrat candidate.

This is serious stuff.   FISA warrants to surveil American citizens are requested and issued in secrecy and so we the people must depend upon those who request the warrants to act with the highest standards.  Those warrants cannot be used for political or personal purposes.  A wrongfully obtained warrant is a violation of the civil liberties that we in this country hold so dear.  We the people have a right to know when those high standards have not been met and we must hold accountable those who use their positions of power to violate someone’s civil liberties and to use a legitimate Court process to further personal and political agendas.

The FBI did not want the memo released; they and the Democrats asked that all names be omitted.  James Comey, one of those high officials mentioned in the memo, following the release of the memo tweeted, “That’s it?  Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.  For what?  DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.”

Yes Mr. Comey, that is it, and it is disgraceful that you and your cronies with your lies and omissions and partisanship damaged the relationship of your agency with the FISA court and improperly obtained a warrant to spy upon an American citizen.  Yes, the DOJ and FBI must keep doing their jobs, something that you were not doing when you took it upon yourself to mislead a court because you felt your political agenda surpassed your duty to the American people.  And, as the FBI itself stated, the memo contained no inaccuracies, therefore contrary to your assertion, it is not dishonest, and it is inconceivable how it might have “wrecked” the committee.  What it did do is wreck the secret power structure (of which you seem to have been a part) that decided that its wishes were more important than the law.

Mr. Comey’s response reflects that of the Democrats.  Apparently, he and they believe that it is perfectly OK to use partisan campaign material to obtain surveillance warrants and that it is perfectly OK to lie to a Court as long as it fits your personal political agenda.  This is a big deal, even though the memo itself may not be.  This is about the abuse of power.   This is about a select few acting behind the cover of the very legitimate FISA courts to subvert the laws of this country and the will of the people for their own political gain.  This is about a select group deciding that the ends – their ends – justify the means, even if those means defy our laws and our Constitution and our civil liberties and our freedoms.

The memo is perhaps not the big deal it was and continues to be hyped.  But what it reveals is a very big deal.  It is something that a free and unbiased press would be investigating and reporting because this is something that the people not only have a right to know but about which they must be informed so that they can demand and protect the rights and freedoms that stand at the core of our democracy:  that this is a government of, for, and by the people and not one controlled in secret by a select few.

How the State of The Union Revealed that the Democrats Are Fully Against That Very Union

Just a few short notes on yesterday’s State of the Union address.  Short, because anyone who is interested likely watched it and observed exactly what I will reflect upon here.  Those who are less interested in the actual state of our union than they are in talking points and personal or political agendas don’t really care anyway since their minds are already fully made up, even in advance of the speech.

It has been a long time since I have heard such positivism and pride in America and to me it sounded wonderful.  There was hope and love for country.  President Trump was able to give a long litany of the many good things that have been done for the people (not the powered elite) during his first year as president.  But, whether one agrees with all his accomplishments or not, one has to admit that his actions have all been for the people of this country and that his presidency is making the lives of our citizens better, both literally and in the mental state of hope that is on the rise in America.  And, the underlying theme was that the President truly understands and believes that ours is a government of the people and that it is his intention to return our government to those people from a group of power hungry elites who think they know better than the populace what is good for them and who have hijacked our government over the last several years.  

Beyond the words coming from the President, the most interesting and telling aspect of the speech was the reaction of the Democrats in attendance.  How could they sit stone-faced, cringing, or worse when the President pointed out things like:  the lowest minority unemployment rates ever; the heroic deeds performed by our first responders and military; the growth in our economy and the positive effects it is already having on the regular people in this land; and even the infrastructure plan that Democrats themselves once supported before this president was elected.  When the President laid out an enormously generous immigration proposal the Democrats openly booed.  And of course they sat on their hands and glared when he spoke of pride in our country, our spirit, and our flag, just as they refused to show any support for the President’s calls for bipartisanship and working together across the aisle.

If the Democrats truly cared about this country they would cheer its successes and positive effects on the people of this land regardless of who brought them about.  So what we seem to have learned is that is not at all what the Democrats care about.  They are totally enveloped in their bubble of hate:  hatred of Donald Trump, hatred that their very flawed candidate lost the election, hatred of any success that the President might have, even when it is for the good of the people that they supposedly represent.  They do not want to see the people benefit from a strong economy, they do not want to see or feel pride in our country, they don’t even seem to want to help the DACA folks whom they claim to support.  They do not want to work together with their colleagues across the aisle for the good of our country.  They just want to hate.  And in doing so it seems that they hate the very country itself and the democracy and freedom that are its shining lights.

So, what do these Democrats want?  It seems it is only their own power.  They do not care about America or Americans except as they might be useful to them in obtaining and retaining power.  And, if the people are happy, doing well, then the Democrats fear losing their power since their approach is to keep the people down and unhappy so that they must be dependent on the offerings of the Democrat’s vision of big government and its companion loss of personal independence and freedom.  President Trump and his return of power to the people and its companions of hope and success are a threat to the Democrats’ elite power.  Of course they hate Trump.

Rather than think of the people and cheer the successes that President Trump has brought and continues to bring to this country and its people, the Democrats can do nothing but hate and attack.  Anyone who watched the State of the Union speech saw this loud and clear.  Anyone who didn’t should watch a replay of the entire speech and see the reactions of these alleged representatives of the American  people to the many successes for those people over the past year which the President outlined.  You have to watch the speech, because the media (which is primarily the voice of the power hungry Democrats) will not give an objective or full account.  Rather, they will pickily find this or that small flaw, then return to the Russia story which continues to be the hope of the Democrats to remove from office a man who truly represents the people and their country.

I end with the concluding lines of the President’s speech (lines that caused at least one Democrat to walk out in disgust).  How can any true American not stand and applaud?

It was that same yearning for freedom that nearly 250 years ago gave birth to a special place called America. It was a small cluster of colonies caught between a great ocean and a vast wilderness. But it was home to an incredible people with a revolutionary idea: that they could rule themselves. That they could chart their own destiny. And that, together, they could light up the world.

That is what our country has always been about. That is what Americans have always stood for, always strived for, and always done.

Atop the dome of this Capitol stands the Statue of Freedom. She stands tall and dignified among the monuments to our ancestors who fought and lived and died to protect her.

Monuments to Washington and Jefferson -- to Lincoln and King.

Memorials to the heroes of Yorktown and Saratoga -- to young Americans who shed their blood on the shores of Normandy, and the fields beyond. And others, who went down in the waters of the Pacific and the skies over Asia.

And freedom stands tall over one more monument: this one. This Capitol. This living monument to the American people.

A people whose heroes live not only in the past, but all around us -- defending hope, pride, and the American way.

They work in every trade. They sacrifice to raise a family. They care for our children at home. They defend our flag abroad. They are strong moms and brave kids. They are firefighters, police officers, border agents, medics, and Marines.

But above all else, they are Americans. And this Capitol, this city, and this Nation, belong to them.

Our task is to respect them, to listen to them, to serve them, to protect them, and to always be worthy of them.

Americans fill the world with art and music. They push the bounds of science and discovery. And they forever remind us of what we should never forget: The people dreamed this country. The people built this country. And it is the people who are making America great again.

As long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve.

As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God, we will not fail.

Our families will thrive.

Our people will prosper.

And our Nation will forever be safe and strong and proud and mighty and free.

Thank you, and God bless America.

One Year

"What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."-Donald J. Trump, 1/20/2017

Despite the Democrats’ wishes to the contrary, Donald Trump has now been our President for one year.  He has indeed made great strides in returning the government of this country to its people, continually fighting desperate attempts by the Democrats and other deeply entrenched establishment types to retain control for themselves.

Here are just a few of the accomplishments of President Trump and his administration:  Jobs are up, unemployment is down, dramatically so for minorities; real weekly earnings are up; the economic growth rate is up; illegal border crossings are down; home prices and home ownership are up; corporate profits are up; manufacturing jobs are up; tax bill already showing benefits to individuals and corporations; carbon dioxide emissions are down; support for troops and veterans; foreign policy successes.

Sadly, we hear little about any of the positives of Trump’s presidency from the main stream media who, like the Democrats whose ideology it speaks, have such a hatred for Donald Trump that they are blinded to anything that does not support that hatred.

When I started writing this blog a year ago it was in large part in response to the vitriolic hatred being spewed against the new President.  Naively I thought that the Democrats and other Trump-haters would get over it in a few weeks.  I understood that they were shocked that someone so unlike them could be elected and that so many people held views contrary to their own.  They were hurt and angry, and I assumed it would take a little time, but that they would come to accept that everyone in the country was not like them and that while they did not particularly like Donald Trump or his policies that they would accept that he was indeed their President and would respect and support him as holder of that office, even if they did not particularly like the man himself.

But, how wrong I was; I assumed these were rational people, people who would get over it and accept their loss, people who respected the process and the office of the president, people who would work to further issues of their concern for the good of the country.  That has not happened; instead, their hatred simply grows.  It is not rational. The Democrats and other anti-Trumpers seem to be living in a world where, before Trump they were totally in charge and could do as they pleased, making decisions for the people as they wished rather than letting the people be in charge.  Now they are faced with someone who understands how our democracy works and who indeed believes that the country belongs to the people, not to an elite few.  This is a threat to them: the anti-Trump brigade wants to run not only their own lives, but those of everyone, and the loss of their power to do so seems to have, in their eyes, threatened their entire existence. Thus, they hate Trump on a very personal level.

Hating Trump seems to be the only issue left to the Democrats.  It begins with their hatred of the man.  He is not like them.  He understands those who are not like him.  He believes that America belongs to all the people and not just an elite few.  He is less concerned with his own power than he is with the power of the country and its people.   And, he is indeed making strides in making America great again.  This is disrupting the comfortable world of the Democrats and their power.

I have come to believe that the current Democrat power structure does not care a wit for this country or its people.  They care only about their own power and their ability to create a country and a world that they envision, regardless of whether that is what the people would choose.  I think they truly believe that anyone who is not in lock step with them is indeed a stupid deplorable.

The fact that the Democrats don’t care one bit for the people they pretend to support, or for the country itself, is evident from their latest game that resulted in shutting down the government.  This seems to turn on DACA and immigration.  Let’s go back a bit:  the legislature was well on its way to a bipartisan agreement on these issues.  But, if the issues are resolved, the Democrats lose that method of fomenting hate against Trump as well as that alleged compassion of their own used as a method to garner support and votes from minorities.  So, instead they return to their narrative of Trump being racist and use that not only as a method for killing the bipartisan solution to immigration, but to shutting down the government as well.  That does not serve the people of this country well.  It may however, give the Democrats talking points, for their shut down will hurt much of Trumps positive effects on the economy, it will hurt our troops and the progress made in foreign policy.  Talking points to garner support for their own power: that is what the Democrats care about, not the country or its people.

Not being a psychologist, I cannot understand how hatred can so overtake a person or a group of people that they would destroy their own country in order to sustain their hatred. I do believe, however, that if the Democrats do not find an issue other than “hate Trump” that they will eventually only succeed in destroying themselves.   If not so filled with and blinded by hatred perhaps these people could actually address and discuss varying views on actual issues. But, their hatred is being used only for their own power and purposes and eventually that can only lead to their demise. 

So, on this anniversary of President Trump’s inauguration I applaud the President for his many successes.  I am in awe of his ability to stand strong in the face of unending and vitriolic hatred.  I accept that he is not perfect, that he is not as refined or as eloquent as some might envision a leader to be, but I also see in him a man who holds the beliefs for our country that our founders envisioned and who is doing everything in his power to uphold and further that vision that is embodied in our Constitution and our history.  We live in a great country; it has lost some of its greatness during the past few years as the power of the people has been usurped by the power of a self-interested ruling class.  President Trump is working to reverse that and make America not only great again, but even greater than it has ever been.  Go Trump!