Month: December 2019

by

The Arrogance of the Democratic Party


For most of my life I was a registered Democrat but some years ago, having become disillusioned with the party, I registered as an Independent and remain that way. I have always been a moderate as I have fully embraced some of the old values of conservatives. I say “old” because in recent years they seem to have abandoned them. I am thinking of the military when I say that.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, 65 million to 63 million, but lost in the electoral college. Her arrogance doomed her as she took it for granted that she would win states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, with a good shot at Ohio. She won none of them. Why? She decided her campaign time was better spent in other states.

Until recently, there was not a single Democrat who I could get behind. Part of it is pragmatism and part of it is being unable to embrace the central idea of their campaign.

I like Elizabeth Warren very much, but for a brilliant person who has been an excellent senator for my state, when it comes to speaking in Presidential terms it’s like she trying to learn on the fly public speaking. Her logic is lacking and her message is muddled. I think Ms. Warren has far more to offer and will garner more power as a Senator than she can offer as a president.

Joe Biden has skeletons, maybe not of his own making, but which will be his undoing in running for President. And like Warren, his message is muddled.

I love Bernie Sanders for his energy and his ability to draw young people to his causes. But Bernie is simply too far to the left and too old. In fact, all three of these candidates, I consider to be too old. It’s time for young blood but my choice candidate will not support that position, unfortunately.

I do love Tom Steyer’s message, but with no government experience he would be a poor choice for many reasons. We’ve endured a three year disaster with a President who had not government experience, we certain do not need another which therefor applies to Andrew Yang. Should a Democrat win the Presidency, Mr. Yang would be a great candidate for some cabinet post as would Pete Buttigieg, because, and I hate saying this, America will not at this time elect a gay President.

That leaves me with former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg. My supporting him blows my age argument totally out of the water because by the time he is sworn in he will be 78 and shortly after that will turn 79. But Mr. Bloomberg is kind of an odd duck in that he served New York City as a Republican. Prior to being mayor and since October 2018, he is a Democrat. Mr. Bloomberg served 12 years as New York’s mayor. This is very significant because only 10 states have more people than New York City. That puts him on a par with 40 state governors.

Bloomberg came from a family of meager means and so he put himself through Johns Hopkins University and then through the Harvard Business School where he earn his MBA. He join Solomon Brothers Financial where he worked his way up to become a partner. His present worth is estimated to be $56 billion, entirely self-made.

One thing you never hear from him is that he is a noted philanthropist. He understands that a good man knows to give back what was given him. He has given away an estimated $8 billion.

Even the little I have heard from Mr. Bloomberg has always been logical and made a lot of sense, something I cannot say of any of the other candidates. I do hope he wins the party’s nomination because he seems to lack the arrogance that many of the others in the field have.

by

The Future of America?


When March 2020 arrives, I will celebrate birthday number 71. I have seen a lot and traveled at lot during those years. I lived in three different countries, Korea, Italy and Micronesia, and been witness to their way of living. I have visited the Middle East, most of Western Europe to include Poland and the Czech Republic. I have also been to 44 of our 50 states. There was much to be seen and learned. I wish I could say I saw it all and learned to an expert level but that just is not true. But what I did see and learn was uniformity.

It did not matter what country I visited, Korea, Syria, or any state, everyone is about the same. Those people I met, Palestinians, Cypriots, Marshallese, each was friendly and welcoming. And so my takeaway from this is that it did not matter what country I was in, people are not political parties, religions, rich or poor, they are just people who are making their way through life in their own particular way. I never expected people to speak English. I always believed the language barrier was mine to be broken down and that usually worked. And those times when the other person did speak English, well, that was a bonus of which I always was grateful.

One thing which was common to almost all the people I visited was they were very nice but hamstrung by the governments which claimed to represent them. I seldom found that to be the truth. I visited Syria, for example, in 1972. That was only five years removed from the 7-days war Israel fought which brought extreme fear and unrest to the entirety of the middle-east. But walking among the people, you would not know that. In Syria, a country which at the time had no U.S. Embassy, the fact that I was American, something that was known when I crossed the border from Lebanon to Syria, seemed of little or no consequence to the military who controlled the border crossings. And once we reach Damascus, the entire bus of people I was with was treated with great warmth and to my surprise, the tour was done in English. There, at the Central Mosque, I learned that in Islam it is believe the head of John the Baptist lies in that Mosque and he is considered a prophet in their religion. And soldiers visiting the golden cage at the spot where the head lies, kneeled and cried before moving to a corner of the Mosque which faced Mecca where they prayed.

Today, when I think of a country, I never think about its government but of its people because they are the true representatives of their country, not their elected officials.

America today is in the most unfortunate position of having a President who has shown no appreciation for the absolute necessity of America getting along with the rest of the world. Worse, it appears this President has taken America backwards and into a 2nd Cold War. When you deal with the devil, as is the case with Putin in Russia and Kim Il in North Korea, it is necessary to present yourself as the protector of those countries they would seek war, to include America itself.

During his years as President, Barrack Obama made serious in-roads in diplomacy with Iran. That was extremely important for peace in the Middle-East and has since been undone by the present administration. When Russia invaded the Crimea, the present President offered no help to the Ukrainian government to stem that incursion. To Russia, that was not a test of the Ukrainian military but of the resolve of the rest of the world, America in particular, to intervene against an illegal act and yet no one did anything. Now Putin knows he can retake former USSR territories with impunity. Are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania next? Or is he setting his sights on Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the other former USSR satellites of that region?

The United States has in place rules for countries where corruption is an issue which can limit or completely withhold U.S. aid to such countries. But what if they become targets of the Russian government. Do we stand by and watch it happen or do we form a coalition to stem any such incursion? Remember now, in even the most corrupt nation, the average person is honest and hard working and deserving of protection of his freedom. Right now, America is not that country and what a shame that is.

Over the past three years, America has acted shamefully towards the rest of the world. Its isolationist policy, its arrogance, and its ignorance, in the form of its lack of action, of issues problematic to most of the world, makes America a country upon which the rest of the world cannot rely. Is this who we really want to be? We desperately need a leader who has a healthy respect for the power of good diplomacy and a diplomatic policy the rest of the world will once again respect. We need a new President.

by

The Spirit of Christmas


Once a year, on December 25th, about 1/3 of the world stops to recognize and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. The story of the birth is one of humbleness (The Three Kings kneeling before Him), giving (the gifts of the Magi) and family, Mary and Joseph. It is a tradition that began then and continues to this day.

Jesus was born into tremendous political discord and yet that merits only a sentence in His story because it is the story of something much larger. It established that on at least one day we put aside our labors, give thanks for our friends and family. It requires that we look upon one another with love.

For example, during World War 1, the British and German soldiers, who were of course mortal enemies, on Christmas day rose up from their respective trenches and walked towards each other bringing gifts to their enemy and celebrating this one day as tradition expected, as they expected. On December 25, 1915/6/7, they were brothers who had the strength of character to put down their rifles, if only for a day, and wish happiness and good cheer to those who shot at them the day before.

This year, in America, and in other countries, political discord and upheaval has brought out the worst in many. But on this day, I would implore all who find someone despicable, whom they say they hate, to look at that person and at the very least forgive them the perceived transgression and wish them happiness and good cheer, as is in keeping with the Christmas spirit. It is good to remember, you have a choice, you can be right or you can be happy, yours to choose, but you cannot choose both.

If you happen to be out on the street walking today, and there is a stranger walking towards you, just before they pass you by, say “Merry Christmas!” and keep on walking. You will most likely make their day and will have fulfilled our duty as human beings to love one another, wishing them the best.

by

The Impeachment of a President


I believe the word “impeachment” may be the least understood word in the lexicon of the average American.  Except in extraordinary times, such as these, the word gets little usage.  This is probably in large part due to its being a word primarily used in legal circles and not in ordinary language.  I therefore offer the definition of “impeachment” as stated by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, on-line version.

  1. “to charge with a crime or misdemeanor specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office”
  2.  “to cast doubt on, especially, to challenge the credibility or validity of . . . a witness”

At the time of the writing of our Constitution, Americans had been forced to live under the “tyranny” of a monach who set rules for his subjects without having any fear of recourse from his subjects.  Our Constitution quite pointedly changed that making an otherwise properly elected or appointed official, the rule below does not strictly apply to the Presidency, to be removed from office.

Article 2, Section 4, reads, simply: “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.”

That’s all it says, nothing more.  In the on-going hearings involving President Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives acts in the same manner as a grand jury in state government.  It is charged with recommending, or not, that charges be brought forth against a particular person.  In the case now before the Congress, the Judicial Committee acts as the prosecutor.  In the case of the impeachment hearings, the Intelligence Committee first and then the Judiciary Committee, brought forth witness who testified under oath what they knew first hand.  Such first hand information is described as, but not limited to, “I heard,” “I saw,” “I was told (by the accused or his agent)”, etc.

The Republicans, relying on the general ignorance of the general public, decried the use of secret hearings.  But in common law, such things are quite regular, and in some cases, secret grand juries, are convened and consider what is being offered.  In the end, if a grand jury finds that there is more evidence to support charges being brought than not, their job is simply to advise the prosecutor to bring forth such charges.  In this case the prosecutor, the House Judiciary Committee, has seen fit to recommend bringing forth such charges.  This is a recommendation to the full House of Representatives who vote on having the charges sent to the senate for prosecution.  In this case a simple majority is all that is required.

Those charges are given to the U.S. Senate where a trial is held.  This is the first point where the defendant and his attorney have the opportunity to present their case.  The defense also has a statutory right to all documents collected and considered by the grand jury, in this case the House Committees.

The Senate President receives the charges and decides if the case should be heard.  In this case Sen. McConnell has already stated that he will hear the case.  At that point the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court becomes the legal advisor of the proceedings.  He otherwise has no standing.  But the rules for conducting such proceeding in the Senate are largely non-existent.  Senate President, Mitch McConnell, upon receiving the charges, has the power to simply dismiss the charges and there would be no senate trial.  He has said, however, that he will convene a trial.  But then he can expedite the trial.

One possible scenario is that Sen. McConnell has the charges read to the Senate at which point he calls for a vote on each of the charges.  A two thirds majority is required to convict and where Democrats are in the minority to begin with, there is little chance of a conviction.

The problem facing Republican Senators, many of them lawyers and former prosecutors, is they know, despite the railings of their House counterparts, that their is in fact sufficient evident for each of the charges to be brought, particularly the contempt of Congress charge.  Their remedy, and their out, is they want this article of impeachment’s legality to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Their logic is that since the court is now decidedly conservative, such a charge would be tossed out as having no merit.  But this is not a sure thing.  The U.S. saw this when during the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt loaded the court with what he believed to be liberal judges who would rubber stamp his decisions.  He found out otherwise when that court ruled the Civilian Conservation Corps (C.C.C.) to be unconstitutional.

This happened again when Justice David Souter, who was put on the court by Pres. George H. W. Bush, turned out to be a moderate who was as likely to vote with the more liberal part of the court as with the conservative.  Do we have such a justice today?  I don’t know.

The biggest problem facing all but the most conservative Republicans, is they know their is truth to both charges.  If the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee showed nothing else, each showed that Republicans consistently chose to attack the charges rather than defend the President’s actions.  Is that not in and of itself an indictment of the President?

The question at hand is:  If the Democrats knew upon convening the impeachment query that the end result would be the President is not removed, then why proceed?  The answer is simple.  Time and again, the Democrats in this process have used their oath of office, the same oath their Republican colleagues took, which is to uphold the Constitution.  Republics of the 1990s used this very same tact towards Pres. Clinton but find it objectionable when used towards Pres. Trump?  You simply cannot have it both ways.

It is my belief that Republicans do not want a proper trial in the Senate, particularly on the Obstruction of Congress charge, because they know the President’s guilt is clear to anyone who cares to observe.

by

A Challenge to the Christian Evangelicals


I read recently that most Christian Evangelicals are still fully supporting President Trump because he has made good on his promise to curb abortions.  But consider this:  I too am anti-abortion but I long ago recognized this as a moral issue, not a legal one, which each person must make for herself.  Please note that I put “herself” because it is not a decision any man ever has to make.  And so, even as much as I despise abortion, I believe in pro-choice.

What further galls me about what this administration has done is to sow the seeds of discord by singling out Planned Parenthood as just a bunch of abortion clinics.  The truth of the matter is, the Planned Parenthood clinics provide all manner of women’s health and the vast majority of their time is spent educating women on issues of health to include why it may be good to not terminate a pregnancy.  But the disinformation the Trump administration has proffered has made Planned Parenthood seem like something it is not.  Jesus believed in choice so why don’t you?

President Trump may just be the most immoral man ever to sit in the office of the President.  How can you look away from these things?  How can you ignore the teachings of the New Testament?

Let me refer you to Matthew 25:31-46.  Do not these verses count in your world, particularly when they are entitled “The Last Judgment”?

“I was hungry and you gave me no food.”  The reduction in support given to those organizations who help feed the homeless and hungry.

“I was away from home and you gave me no welcome . . . ”  Immigrants at our borders fleeing persecution and death are being denied entry or those who get to apply for asylum are made to wait so long that they are killed, raped or kidnapped.

And if you fully read that portion of Matthew and relate it to the world around you, how much of it are you not doing?  Are  you making excuses for your inability to keep the instructions of Jesus or are you finding ways to help?

Jesus said that if you find a man who is impoverished you should give him half of what you own.  I do not suggest that to be a reasonable demand but do you give to those non-religious organizations whose goal is to help as many of those in need as possible such as homeless shelters, battered women’s shelters, food pantries and the like?

Anyone can say “I believe” but the true believer does and says nothing.  Jesus also said something along those lines.

I am not suggesting that you support some Democrat but I am suggesting that you not support Trump who by his daily actions invalidates all Jesus has ever preached.  Support someone who meets the challenges Jesus gave us.