We’re All in This Together – Except When We’re Not

COVID-19 is a virus that threatens every person in this country and potentially every person in the world.  While not a visible army, we can very much consider ourselves under attack and the leaders of every country are under an obligation to do the best they can to protect their people.

I happen to think that our President is doing a fantastic job.  He has assembled a team of experts to advise him, led by the very competent Vice President.  President Trump has coordinated and brought together the resources that are available to him, has brought private industry and their innovation and resources into the mix, he has gotten our Congress to begin to work bipartisanly for the good of the people instead of themselves.  The President has acted decisively and quickly and in so doing has likely lessened at least somewhat the spread and effects of the epidemic in this country.  He continues to act as he daily consults with his experts and the new information that they daily gain about the virus.

The President is working for the people of the country.  Many of those people are also working selflessly for their fellow Americans.  And those that are not a part of critical services, those that have been asked to social distance and not go out for non-essential reasons can and should also do their part for America against this invisible enemy.  Many are; sadly, some are not.

This virus can be asymptomatic – a person can have the virus and be able to infect others without feeling any symptoms themselves.  We should all consider ourselves carriers, and the best way to lessen the spread of the virus is for us all, then, to avoid going out in public where we, or our touch on tables, door handles, etc., can possibly spread the virus to others.  To go out, when we do not have to, is to put our fellow Americans at risk.

Yet too many seem to believe that it is about them, not others.  They are not sick, so why not go out.  They think they are healthy and won’t get sick, so why not go out.  There is no concern for the less healthy others who might indeed get sick or die from the virus that they might spread.  The part that most Americans are being asked to play is nothing like the burdens that Americans have suffered together in times of war (ask your parents/grandparents about the second world war!).  We are simply being asked to stay in and away from others as much as possible.  Not a big sacrifice, yet still some are not willing to take it.

For some, it is just a matter of changing their usual social behaviors.  For others – small business people for example, it may be a bigger sacrifice as they close their doors for 2 or 3 weeks, lay off their employees, and lose revenue.  Yes, that is a big deal.  Yet the President and Congress are passing and have passed a series of bills that will in large part alleviate the losses.  This President will forget no one, and we Americans need to trust that he and Congress together will keep us whole.

So, we the people can and should all pull together and each of us do our part for the good of our neighbors and our country.  We need to put self-interest and self-centeredness aside and begin thinking of the many others with whom we are in this together.

But there is another group I would like to address, and that is those who continue to see this as a political goldmine.  First, let me say that I am impressed in the last few days with the bipartisanship that has surfaced in Washington as the Congress and the White House seem to be, for the most part working together.  While realistically I suspect this will not continue once we have won the current war against the virus, I would like to hope that at least  a small part of it will in some way remain and evolve into something both positive and permanent.

But then there are others.  At a time when we need to be working together, I read about a Democrat PAC that plans to spend five million on ads attacking President Trump’s handling of the epidemic even as we are in the middle of the crisis.   When people are already balking or not understanding the need to follow the CDC/White House guidelines which are clearly necessary to attack and slow this virus, why would a group choose to try to make people question the President’s actions that include issuing those guidelines?

This most recent PAC is not alone in its actions.  There are other PACs taking similar actions.  Biden and Sanders have not held back in their attacks on how the President is handling the crisis. And of course the Press, even at the daily White House press briefings, latches onto and furthers these attacks.

There will be plenty of time to attack the President and his actions once this crisis is over.  It will be over a lot sooner if we let the President and his experts continue their thus far effective strategies rather than trying to convince the American people that he is incompetent or doesn’t care about this or them, or whatever lies they are trying to spread.

On NPR this morning they were focusing on problems with testing from weeks ago and letting people complain about the incompetence of the system as if it were today.  To be clear, doctors and experts have emphatically stated that problems with testing at the beginning were not the fault of Trump or the CDC, but of a system in place that did not work for this sort of epidemic.  Since then, the President has revamped the system and partnered with private industry to create quicker and faster tests and make them available to all who need them.  Let’s applaud that rather than whine about a problem that has already been handled.

And, as to those tests, not every single American needs one and if every American demands the certainty of knowing they do/do not have the virus they will only clog the system.  People who need tests can get them.  Let the system work.

The Press often attacks because they get information today that was not given yesterday or perhaps conflicts with earlier information.  Well, the information that we have about the virus is evolving hourly as the experts have more data to analyze and more cases to review.  Trump’s team is doing this, informing him, and hence he has new and sometimes different information to provide.  This is not a bad thing.

But then, if you are Donald Trump, too often in the eyes of the Press you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  For example, he was criticized for his early decisive action to stop incoming flights from China.  There is no dispute that this early decisive action greatly reduced the threat in our country.  When he could no longer be criticized for closing the borders, he was then criticized for not doing it soon enough.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  And certainly not helpful in a time of crisis.

Then there are the repeated attacks because the President (and others) call this the Chinese Virus.  Hey, it came from China.  If it came from America it would be an American virus.  Those are facts.  Calling the virus Chinese is not racist, even if there were no other reason for doing so.  But, besides it being a factual statement, it counters a propaganda campaign waged by China that it was American soldiers who brought the virus to China.  It emphasizes the falsity of that Chinese propaganda.  That is not racist and attempts to make it so are simply attempts to divide the country when we should be trying to bring everyone together with the common goal of defeating this viral enemy.

When a country is under attack, when it is at war, it is a time for the people to pull together for the common good and the good of their country.  They become less self-centered and more concerned with the greater good.  Most Americans are doing this now.  But there are those who are not in this together with the rest of us, who simply see this crisis as an opportunity to further their own selfish interests.  While I hope the American people can and will recognize this, that task becomes harder when one of those who is not pulling together but instead participates in the sowing of seeds of dissention is the Press.  We get our information from the Press and its ability to objectively approach and report news is crucial to our ability to understand a crisis and each do our part to help resolve it.

There are those who have been trying to pull this country apart for several years now.  Their continuing such actions in a time of crisis should prove to all that they do not care about our country or any of us, its people, but instead only care about their own agendas and their own power.  They can only hurt us.

But, to the many Americans who do believe that we are all in this together, who are doing their part in our war against the Coronavirus, I applaud you for your sacrifices, be they great or small.  Thank you for understanding the war we are in, for listening to our leaders and experts, for following the guidelines, even as they evolve, and for protecting not only yourself but your neighbors as well.  If we all pull together we will beat this thing sooner rather than later, so let’s just ignore those disrupters who are not in this with us.

What Covid-19 Tells Us About Our Neighbors and Other Thoughts

In watching the reactions of my neighbors and our country to the Corona Virus (its existence, its spread in this country, the way we are handling it, etc.), I realize that it tells me a lot about my fellow citizens.

The first thing that struck me early on was the panic, and the continued fomenting of panic to make the story better.  That, early on, combined with the seeming need of the Democrats to use the virus and the accompanying panic as a new weapon against the President.  When WHO named it a pandemic (a term that simply means "an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people," the panic level increased, as if pandemic meant the end of the world.  WHO by the way is the World Health Organization, and not Who’s on first (since with baseball cancelled no one is on first – but, I digress). 

With the new encouraged panic that came with the label pandemic, and the accompanying attacks on the President for how he was handling it, I couldn’t help but see the words that exist within “pandemic”:  PANIC and DEM.  It sure seemed like an appropriate coincidence that the Dems were using the pandemic to try to foment panic in a way that would hurt the President. 

But, those are politicians, and, truth be told, they seem to be doing a better job at bipartisanship in the last few days.  Though, certainly, they will examine every word of every press conference once this threat has passed in order to find new ammunition against their opponents.

So, let’s look at the regular people.  How did they react?  First, there is the hoarding.  Of ridiculous items like toilet paper –I really don’t understand that.  I can understand buying a  little more soap or hand sanitizer, but what about the woman I watched in my local grocery pull the 7 remaining jars (gallon size I think) of hand sanitizer into her already overloaded basket, and refuse to share with someone who asked if she could have just one?  Why are people hoarding water?  This isn’t a drought.  Perishable foods that would last me 3 months that I know will rot before they are used while someone else who just wanted a week’s worth will go without.  This is not only ridiculous; it is selfish plain and simple.

This selfishness is especially noteworthy due to the fact that many of these same people are the ones who are usually lecturing about our need to take care of those less fortunate than us.  I guess that is fine when you have all you need, but when you think they might have or get something that you want, then it becomes just fine to ignore their pleas.  For so many it is really all about oneself, and I am interpreting this to also mean that the seemingly humanitarian gestures they may make when we are without a pandemic really serve some ulterior selfish motive (the need to have people dependent on oneself, the need to feel superior in one’s ability to “help” someone less fortunate, the general need for power).   

Then there are the variety of guidelines, that are generally put out by the CDC, but required at varying levels by different states.  So many people think these guidelines, or even the state requirements do not apply to them.   Clearly, they do not understand the purpose of the varieties of social distancing that are suggested or required, or if they do, then they are just plain selfish.   They would rather not give up a night out or some other unnecessary pleasure than eliminate the risk that they might carry the virus to someone else.  Yes, one can carry the virus without showing symptoms, and the more places we go the more likely it is that we will come into contact with the virus and potentially carry it to another.   Each one of us should really think of ourselves as a carrier, and we should understand that it is not about our selfishly not missing some nonessential event, but about us protecting our fellow humans – our neighbors.  Yes, the social distancing protects oneself, but it also protects our fellow citizens.

Another thing that stands out to me is the inability of many people to deal with uncertainty.  This virus and our knowledge of it is ever evolving and so there really are no certain answers.  This does not sit well with many; they become angry, they think they are being lied to (“you said that yesterday, but today you say this”), they attack, and then they think they can just ignore everything.

I have recently been watching the daily White House briefings on the virus.  First, I would argue that the President and his team of experts are doing an amazing job.  Probably not perfect (I’m sure the Democrats will analyze even the slightest imperfections to death once this is over), but they are balancing reality with possible panicked overreaction or over limitation on our freedoms.  As is appropriate, they leave the extent of requirement and enforcement to state governors who can assess the particular threats within their state.  And, because the knowledge base about the virus is ever evolving, their statements and recommendations likewise evolve and may even contradict earlier statements.  This makes sense, yet some of the press chooses to use their questions to attack/find fault with this instead.

Yes, we want answers.  Definitive answers.  How long?  How many?  Can I plan something for April?  Can I go to a movie?  With how many friends?  The answers today will likely be different tomorrow.  We must live with this uncertainty as we work to understand and get the virus under control.  Rather than anger, let’s listen to the experts and try to follow their advice – for the good of both ourselves and our fellow Americans.

The President and his team issue guidelines – today a 15 day critical list – which they ASK Americans to follow for the benefit not only of themselves but of their fellow citizens as well.  These, according to the experts, can drastically slow the spread of the virus.  They are not difficult to follow.  They will probably change in 15 days.  Yes, people will need to alter their routines, forego some of their usual activities, but they are nothing like the wartime rationing or the like that our parents and grandparents suffered as they all pulled together for the good of their country.

Rather than complain about the hardships of being asked to stay home for a while, I wish that people would perhaps use that time to educate themselves about this virus and think about how they can do their part for the good of our country rather than whine about what they themselves cannot do.

As a start in that education process here are two links.

The first is to the White House 15 day guidelines issued today.  This 2 page document explains how you can do your part to slow the spread of the virus:  GUIDELINES 

The second link is to an interactive article from the Washington Post that explains why “flattening the curve” of the outbreak is so important and how different levels of social distancing can affect that.  FLATTENING THE CURVE 

I finally note that many people are doing all they can for all of us:  the President and his team, the bipartisan efforts from Congress, the private industries that have stepped up, the individuals who are helping their neighbors, and most importantly, our health care workers who are that thin white line of defense on which we all depend.  So many people, from the President to the local janitor who is keeping things sanitized, are working selflessly for America and its people.  Let’s all get behind them and help to minimize the destruction that this virus will cause.

Stand By Your Man (and the country be damned), and Other Thoughts

I have not written here for some time for two main reasons.  One, I personally have been quite busy, and second and more decisive was that there is just little new to say.   The Democrats are the same angry haters obsessed with removing Trump from office.  Socialism is still socialism.  Trump is still using crude language but doing great things for the people of this country – jobs, economy, international relations, etc. etc.  So, having addressed all of this previously, it seemed redundant to rewrite.

But, now that the Democrats have seemingly chosen the instrument that they will use to attempt a win in November, and now that we have the Senate Democrat leader threatening Supreme Court justices, I do have a few thoughts which follow.

First, about Joe Biden.  I think it is clear to just about everyone that Joe seems to be in the early stages of dementia.  Whether or not you like or support Joe, that is sad.  But more importantly, it is frightening to consider that he could be the candidate for and could even be elected as president.  Anyone with any thought must be able to see the danger in that.

So, that is why I wonder why his wife stands by and supports him.  We saw her protect him by attacking a protester recently, but is she really protecting him when she encourages his continued run for an office it seems clear that his mind in its present state cannot handle?  Is she protecting him when she is helping him to be used by the Democrats who don’t really care about Joe, but only see him as a useful tool to possibly regain their power?

I don’t understand this.  But then, I don’t understand how a whole party could care more about their own power than the country.  I suspect that if the Democrats successfully use Joe to regain power, they will quickly cast him aside, so if he does get the nomination, the one voters should be scrutinizing is not Joe, but his pick for Vice President. 

But what really puzzles me is the wife.  Democrats are always saying that Republican women can’t think for themselves, but I look at Joe’s wife and I wonder what on earth she is thinking, or if she is even thinking.  Would anyone help to put someone who so obviously seemingly suffers from some sort of dementia into the powerful position of President of the United States of America?  Can she really be that selfish?  Or, is she, like all good Democrats, just falling in line and doing what she is told, even when in the long run it is more likely to hurt her husband or at least make him some sort of laughing stock, while at the same time working to create a situation that endangers the entire country.  

If someone whose mind is not 100% is given the chance to make world and life changing decisions that can affect us all, then we are all in danger.  Joe’s wife, Dr. Biden (Ed.D.) must understand that.   I know that if I were in her situation and my husband were showing signs of early dementia, regardless of party demands or personal love of power, I would do everything I could to talk him out of running.

Joe is a lovable character.  His gaffes are humorous.  Now.   There are many types of dementia, some progress quickly, others slowly.  But no matter how much you love someone, or how much you hate the current white house occupant, absolutely no one should be even considering replacing that current occupant with someone whose mental state is questionable.

But, then, when your only campaign policy is to beat Trump, I guess such things as the good of the country really are not relevant.

***

Turning now to Senator Schumer’s recent threats toward Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, this also is something about which every American should be outraged.  His words, while arguably hyperbolic, were clear threats intended to intimidate those justices to rule a particular way in an upcoming case.

That is nothing like giving an opinion about a case that has been decided or about comments made by a justice in a decided case or on other matters not before the court.  Yet, in its biased propaganda wisdom, the mainstream media considers such comments by Trump to be completely analogous to the threats of Schumer.  They are not.

Schumer said: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”  These words were spoken at an abortion rights protest in front of the Supreme Court while the court has a pending abortion case before it.  It is a threat to the justices, an attempt to cause them to rule pro-abortion in the pending case. Schumer, despite his attempted retractions, knew exactly what he was saying and what he was doing. 

Schumer’s threat is nothing like the statements by Trump in which he, in his typical straight and common verbiage (not refined politi-speak) criticizes decisions he does not like.  This is something that every president tends to do – give opinions about decisions that have been rendered.  That is very different from threatening a judge to decide a particular way in a pending case “or else.”

Even Trump’s most recent statements about Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg were not threats to their decision making in a pending case.  He said he thought they have been unfair to him in the past and that they should recuse themselves from future cases involving him.  These are his opinions; there is no pending case involved and there is no threat that if they do not decide his way in a pending case that they will “pay the price.”

Trump’s words express his unfavorable opinions about justices and their past decisions.  Schumer’s words are a clear attempt to intimidate and influence the decision in a current case pending before those justices whom he threatened.  In this country we are allowed to express our opinions.  We do not, however, threaten judges to decide a pending case in a particular way.  To do so can be a felony or other crime.  This is because in this country we expect impartial justice.

It is dangerous when Americans, especially American leaders and politicians, believe they can intimidate the Supreme Court and force it to make decisions political rather than render unbiased, legal, and Constitutional decisions.  Dictators, socialists, other authoritarian regimes may tell their judiciary how to decide a case, but we do not do that in this country.  But, perhaps the Left, in its quest to upend our democracy and establish their own absolute power, have forgotten that.

***

And, finally, one quick comment about another Democrat primary contender – Elizabeth Warren.  Her inability to endorse Sanders, whose policies mirror those that she advocated during her campaign, just underscores what we have known since long before this campaign cycle:  that she is a total fraud.   For her, there is only one interest, and that is herself.  She used a false Native American narrative to further her career and her power; she used big money, then trashed it when it better served her campaign to do so; and, apparently she used a progressive/socialist agenda to try to further her presidential chances, but there is no evidence that she really believed in or cared about what she was saying.  She is a woman after her own power and nothing else.  I assume she will work to get the best deal she can for herself before she comes forward with an endorsement which could be for Bernie or for Joe; she really doesn’t care as long as it is good for her.  Remember that next time she runs. 

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. 

Happy New Year! What is Your Mission?

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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