-----------------Rodney King - May 1, 1992
Rodney King's utterance back in 1992 seems more appropriate today than ever. Daily the media floods us with sensational news feeds that seem designed to cater to our innermost fears, hatreds, and intolerances.
Facts seem to take second place to ideology. Very few seem to care about the truth anymore - promulgating an ideology is all that seems to matter.
Civility in our daily discourse, especially about things political, appears to be at its lowest ebb - at least in my lifetime - and that's well over 70 years.
There are many things that might contribute to this - not the least of which is the Internet offering anonymity to those who wish only to spew hate and discord. There is no accountability for lies, unsubstantiated innuendoes, or anything else these days.
People who feel that they have no real say in how the government affects their lives spew hate and discord out of, well, perhaps frustration. But, it seems more than that. It's seems to me that such vitriolic interchanges actually stem from a severe lack of communication skills and knowledge of facts surrounding issues. What I fear even more than that is that some people don't seem to care if they have the facts - they want what they want and will stoop as low as they can to get it.
And, probably as important, is the seeming fact that even the words we use to convey our political emotional feelings, beliefs, and discontents are not understood with the same connotation by others as we have meant them. It is apparent to me that we, as a people, have lost our ability to accurately, and with civility, articulate our thoughts and/or intended messages. Have we really gotten to the point that anything over 140 characters in discourse is beyond us?
A case in point:
As a conservative I have, when the opportunity arose, attempted to uncover the mindset of progressives. This not to start or finish an argument nor to try and convert anyone; but, truly to try and understand some of the positions stated by progressives that I do not understand.
Personally, I feel that LIBERALS are a breed apart from PROGRESSIVES, liberals being more closely aligned with modern day conservatives in many ways - not all, to be certain. John Kennedy and Harry Truman were LIBERALS; Barack Obama, Woodrow Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson were PROGRESSIVES. I won't belabor this point. However, this link fairly well characterizes the differences as I see them. I have talked to people today who call themselves liberal; in fact, what they espouse is that of progressivism.
To reinforce my assertion on Progressives vs. Liberals take a look at these 2 items: 1) A gentleman, a self-identified "Classic Liberal", offers his opinions; and 2) Columnist Bernie Goldberg states what I've been saying for years on this subject.
AND, I'm still waiting!
Back during President Obama' s first term in office I approached a well-meaning and very intelligent family member who is a self-proclaimed liberal/progressive. Making it clear that I was sincerely looking to understand and not to argue any point, I asked the following question:
"Why did you vote for Barack Obama for president?"
I received a one word answer: "Hope!". That was it. So, I then asked, "Hope for what, exactly?" This family member had no specific answer other than a hope that things change. Change things to what or even what things needed change were not forthcoming - or, maybe not even known by the family member at that time.
It is the intent of this article to lay out my perceptions of the issues facing us today and how the words we use and how we phrase them, both on the conservative and progressive sides, need to be enhanced. Enhanced such that people on both sides of an issue actually know what the other side really means. This is not to imply that any minds will be changed.
No, it is my wish that with a clear understanding of both sides of an issue - any issue - a civil discourse can result. Then, perhaps, movement toward agreement can ensue.
Let's look at several issues frequented in the news these days and I'll offer what I "believe" progressives' positions are and this conservative's logic and rational for the same issues. And, by both conservative and progressive what I write is meant in a general sense - not necessarily applicable to any individual.
As an aside, throughout the remainder of this article I am sincerely looking for logical, factual presentations by progressives on the topics covered below. NOT statements (from either side) like "Trump is a racist!", "Hillary Clinton is a criminal!", or the like. Substantive responses only, please. I will present what I "believe" are progressives' positions on things - but, I am not truly certain I'll get them correct. I do have copious amounts of data, evidence, and facts to support this conservative's views far beyond what is presented below.
Federal Funding of 'Planned Parenthood'
Voter ID Laws
Immigrants & Refugees
Climate Change / Global Warming
Today's Political Animus
My Summary Statement
Issue 1: The US Constitution - A Living Document or a Law to be followed as written?
My understanding of a progressive's view on this goes something like this:
The US Constitution, written hundreds of years ago, could not possibly have considered the issues and mores of today's United States and its people. Therefore, it should be interpreted as a "living document" to account for our changing times. No single interpretation of any Constitutional statement should be considered "written in stone"; the American people deserve that their current needs and wants are what determines any interpretation - and, any laws that result.
A conservative's view on the US Constitution:
The US Constitution is LAW - meant to be interpreted as it was written ; i.e., what the Founding Fathers actually meant when they created the document.
One of the founding principles that makes America so great is Equality Under The Law For All. Were the Constitution to be interpretable based on the mores of the day, would there be consistency in its application across time? The answer, of course, is "No."
The Supreme Court's existence is to adjudicate issues of law as to their "constitutionality" - "yea" or "nay". Without a firm baseline of the meanings of laws, how could such consistency be assured? A SCOTUS member's personal ideology should not have a role in deciding the "constitutionality" of anything.
Problematic is that members of the SCOTUS, in fact, do allow their personal ideologies to sway their opinions - to our collective detriment.
As a conservative, there are things in the Constitution that I wish had been stated more clearly, things to which I just down right object, and things that are not there that I wish were. However, again, consistency is paramount to equality for all in the application of our laws.
Now, as things arise over time changes to the Constitution are necessitated. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to anticipate this - thus Article V. Article V specifies the means to accomplish change to our Constitution. In fact, there have been 27 amendments (i.e., changes) so far. It seems that all too often interpretations to fit the need of today take the place of proper change.
If, in fact, the US Constitution were a "living document" as the progressives assert, consider the following:
1. Would there even be a need for Article V? Why be able to change something that can be interpreted as one sees fit?
2. Were the US Constitution truly a "living document" as progressives insist, then it, one day, could be "opinioned" by SCOTUS in a way favorable to your wishes; and, later it, without change to the exact same document statement, could be interpreted in a way you don't like. Has this actually ever happened? Yes - and more than once.
3. Actually, would there be a need for a Constitution at all? Congress could just make or rescind any and all laws they wished based on the mores of the day - actually, the way it seems to work these days, laws would be made/rescinded based on who had the most money to spend.
I feel that there are only two options re: the law - 1) Follow the law, or 2) Change the law. Ignoring the law or pretending it says something it does not should not be an option.
Issue 2: Gun Control
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
The amount of gun violence in this country is absurd. Stronger background checks are necessary. How many mass shootings in this country will it take for people to realize that strict gun control is an absolute necessity?
The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, in fact, does not give all people the "right to bear arms"; it specifically states the requirement for a "militia". The closest things we have today to a "militia" are the military, the National Guard, and the police agencies.
The fewer people who have guns the less violent crime using guns will there be.
A conservative's view on Gun Control:
The US Constitution is clear on the issue of gun control. And, it does NOT give anybody the "right to bear arms". It actually says that (what is generally referred to as) the "right to bear arms", which exists as a pre-existing right "shall not be infringed" upon by the federal government.
While the wording of the 2nd Amendment leaves much to be desired, any research into the authors of the Constitution will uncover exactly what they intended - all Americans should have the right to a gun if they so desire - and the Founding Fathers actually encouraged doing so.
There are plenty of gun restriction laws, including background checks, etc., on the books already. The issue is that when none of the "good people" have guns, the criminals will. Criminals, as you probably know, don't follow the law - that's why they're called "criminals".
Is there a weekend that goes by where in the city of Chicago, which has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation, dozens if not scores of shootings are reported?
Of a certain curiosity is that all the "mass shootings" in this country have been perpetuated by progressives - not conservatives. These "mass shootings" are on what the progressive media focuses - never mind that only 2% of shooting deaths are related to "mass shootings.
Every time one occurs the media and the progressives at large scream for stricter gun control. Maybe progressives should ride herd on their own.
Does the media jump up and down over the shootings in Chicago, for example? No. Ever wonder why not? If one checks, the cities having the most gun violence are those with the strictest gun control laws and those cities are led by progressives.
And, just for those who insist that fewer guns equals fewer homicides, the below depicts the results of 192 countries. The results of this study show the exact opposite.
Issue 3: Federal Funding of 'Planned Parenthood'
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
Republicans and conservatives, in general, are against abortion. They base their views on their religious convictions. Republicans and conservatives, in general, are not adhering to our Constitution's concept of a "separation of church and state". They are against a woman's right to choose. Planned Parenthood provides valuable services to women across this nation. To defund them would be to deny all women in this country their rights.
A conservative's view on 'Planned Parenthood':
A person's specific religious views on any subject are not to be used to create legislation or otherwise thwart laws on the books. Legislating on things of morality, beyond things like murder, etc., is not the purview of government. This concept was most evident with the passage of the 18th Amendment to our Constitution. It had to be rescinded by the 21st Amendment.
As to the progressives' oft heard statements on "separation of church and state", neither the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence utter a single word on the subject. The US Constitution states that there shall be no "establishment of religion" and that the government shall not prohibit the "free exercise thereof" of any religion.
The progressives who object and file suit at the drop of a hat every time someone displays a "religious" symbol, for example, should read what the 1st Amendment actually says - especially the "free exercise thereof" part.
'Roe vs. Wade' is a law on the books. While there is absolutely no Constitutional grounds supporting the government's right to create such a law, it is law, nonetheless. And, as long as it is the law, it shall be followed. Being law, however, does not imply in any way that the taxpayer is to be forced into paying for the continuance of such an organization as 'Planned Parenthood'.
There is a significant difference between "a woman's right to contraception" and "forcing everyone to pay for it". The first is a "given" by conservatives; the second is orthogonal to that "given" and not based in Constitutional law, nor in logic.
Further, progressives are wont to tell us that without 'Planned Parenthood' women would lose access to needed services provided by that organization. The below graphic may shed some light on the accuracy of that claim.
Issue 4: Healthcare
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
Healthcare - free healthcare - is a basic human right. People who stand against Obamacare, for example, are heartless and care not about the health needs of the old, the poor, nor the otherwise disadvantaged.
A conservative's view on healthcare:
No one should be without proper and adequate healthcare coverage. Should the taxpayer foot the bill for services others do not want nor need, for services others can't or won't afford, or for elective services that are to effect non-life threatening issues? No. Actually, should the taxpayer foot the bill for any healthcare coverage? No.
Our Constitution makes no such demands on the American people. Should it? Perhaps. But, as of now it doesn't. Any law that forces the American people to "buy" anything is beyond the authority of the federal government. And, that includes "Obamacare".
Obamacare was only "opinioned" as constitutional because Justice Roberts instructed the crafters of Obamacare to change the word "fines" to "tax" making it a revenue issue. This was nothing but word trickery.
Obamacare was an ill-conceived approach. It made the remedial managerial mistake of fixing a 10% problem with a 100% solution. Now the entire ACA is nearing collapse due to managerial naïveté.
The current (June 2016) attempts by Republicans to "fix" Obamacare , again, are fraught with managerial incompetence. They, as yet, have failed to even define what such a "fix" would mean and what effects on our economy such a "fix" would have.
Progressives are oft to point out that healthcare is a right - a basic human right. No widely accepted delineation of human rights exists anywhere. Again, should there be such a list? Perhaps. But, as of today, no such exists. [For an exposition on this, Click Here.]
So, claims that "rights" are being violated, unless such rights are specified in our Constitution or otherwise in our laws which have been "opinioned" as constitutional, are bogus claims meant only to divide us as a people.
Sir Thomas Browne offered us the following: "Charity begins at home..." (see 'Religio Medici, 1642). The saying is NOT "Charity begins with the government...". Perhaps if we all focused on our helping others and not demanding that the government forces its citizenry to help others, we would all be much better off.
Issue 5: Voter ID Laws
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
Any and all laws that require voters to prove they, in fact, are US citizens are designed to suppress the votes of minorities, the poor, and otherwise disadvantaged.
Such laws harken back to the days of "poll taxes" and certain minorities being only counted as 3/5 of a person. Every person living in our country should have free and open access to choose the leadership of our country as they see fit.
Whether a person has the "proper", official documentation or not should never be required.
A conservative's view on Voter ID Laws:
This single issue, perhaps, befuddles conservatives the most. The apparent illogic of the progressives' views on Voter ID Laws seems beyond understanding.
Consider the things in our daily lives that mandate an ID - and a picture ID at that:
And, not even listed above is signing up for and using Obamacare and being able to even deposit a check into your own bank account..
Are progressives actually trying to propose that the poor, minorities, and other disadvantaged people do none of the above? Ludicrous!
Let's dispel one thing right now - the "3/5 of a person" argument.
That ended in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. Let it go, people. No one has advocated that or been subjected to that for over 150 years. To keep bringing that up is merely to create division among our citizens, nothing more.
Actually, more to the point on this is that the progressive Democrats were the ones kicking and screaming against any rights being rightly given to blacks in this country.
Until, that is, they found a way to use it to their advantage over the long run. Take for example Lyndon Johnson's (a progressive Democrat) reported quote relative to his civil rights actions: "I’ll have those n*&&ers voting Democratic for 200 years."
The above is a small part of the progressives' goal of having as many people dependent upon government as possible. Doing so will ensure that millions vote for those who will provide "free stuff"; i.e., the progressives.
Back to the basic subject -
Every state in the Union offers free Voter ID cards to those who can prove US citizenship.
Progressives argue that the logistics of the poor, the minorities, and otherwise disadvantaged is such that requiring a Voter ID is a "hardship". Were that truly the case, then a problem exists.
How is it that these same "disenfranchised" persons are able to get to the polls to vote every 2 and/or 4 years? In many cases progressives organize a "get out to vote" strategy where the "disenfranchised" are picked up and taken to the pools to vote.
Can not the same transportation support be used to take the "disenfranchised" to get a free Voter ID ONCE?
Conservatives like to argue that a proper Voter ID card is necessary to assure there is no "voter fraud". While NOTHING can prevent all voter fraud, an ID card would go a long way.
But, is voter fraud a "big deal" - I mean besides being illegal and wrong? There has been no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to sway an election as yet. But, stories like the voter fraud uncovered in Virginia do little to back up or reinforce the progressives' message. Further, the governor of VA, Terry McCauliffe, appears to be complicit in this.
And, McCauliffe points to a perception issue for the progressives. I'll admit up-front that it is not fair to judge the many be the actions of the few. However, as the progressive political machine does nothing to come out against someone like McCauliffe, a negative perception remains. To see what I mean, Click Here.
But, I have digressed.
Is there truly anyone out there who believes non-citizens should be able to vote on how OUR government is run? Remember, there is estimated to be millions and millions of non-citizens living in the US as I write this.
And, more and more states are issuing drivers licenses to non-citizens which, in many cases, the mere possession of a "valid" drivers license allows these non-citizens to register to vote. Further, be aware that the vast majority of these non-citizens live at the pleasure of our tax dollars.
This issue is truly baffling to a conservative.
Issue 6: Immigrants & Refugees
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
America was founded by immigrants. They made this country what it is today. Those who wish immigration and refugees halted are going against the fabric that is America. Immigrants offer us diversity in cultures and additional skills to our workforce. And, they provide an additional employee source for jobs that many Americans do not wish to do.
The same people who want immigration halted regardless of how they got here want the illegal immigrants who are here deported. This would cause families being broken apart, leave many jobs unfilled, and it would be like tearing the soul of the nation away. It is inhumane.
A conservative's view on Immigrants & Refugees:
While it is a fact that our great nation was built on the back of immigrants, as it were, the immigrants of old were a different breed.
[I'll not address the views of Native Americans here. Most likely they have less than kinds words to offer as to what we've done with the country.]
The immigrants who helped our Nation grow and prosper sought to assimilate into a culture they found better than the one from whence they came. Their work ethic was strong. Each wave of new immigrants found a somewhat hostile political atmosphere awaiting them. They did not retreat; but, persevered through it all until they became sort of invisible in the fabric of our country. They did not seek public assistance nor did they expect such. They became a part of us all. And, they all came here LEGALLY!
The millions and millions of illegal immigrants now residing in our Nation arrived here, well, illegally. Not a good start. They wish not to assimilate but demand that US citizens recognize and accept their different culture(s). We see news stories of today's immigrants demanding that their home countries' flags and colors take precedent over our own. And, then we see our own people apologize? The word "unbelievable" comes to mind.
Of a great concern is that the majority of today's immigrants, both legal and illegal, offer only the lowest of skills, seek - often demand - public assistance at an exorbitant rate, and, many so-called refugees, as in Dearborn, MI, have established Muslim no-go zones where only Muslims are welcome. That is NOT the American way. Many of these refugees (from majority Muslim countries) want and seek that their Sharia Law supercede US Law. This is totally unacceptable to any conservative.
What's more troubling is that it is a fact that people from terrorist-prone countries are illegally gaining entry into our country through our Southern border with Mexico. THIS is a NATIONAL SECURITY RISK!
Further, the crime rates by those here illegally far surpass those who are citizens or are otherwise here legally.
The progressives go on and on about restrictions on illegal immigrants will cause families to be separated. This is not specifically true. No law forces someone deported NOT to take their family with them when they leave. Have progressives ever once considered that illegal immigrants have caused family separations due to their actions? Between 2010 and 2014 121 homicides were committed in the U.S. by illegal immigrants who had already been convicted of a crime. And that is by those, to repeat, ALREADY convicted of a crime prior to the murders!
And, This Data should alarm us all.
Another thing progressives love not to tout are the criminal statistics of illegal immigrants compared to American citizens. And, from This Article it is understandable why they don't.
And, speaking of crimes by illegal immigrants, progressives' heads must be exploding when 2 of their "division-driving" messages hit head-on with annihilating results.
During the Obama years as president we witnessed untold numbers of "refugees" and illegal aliens settled throughout the US. This having been done without the prior knowledge of states' governments nor local governments of the areas where "resettlements" happened.
Ask yourselves, have any of these "refugees" and/or illegal aliens been settled in to hometown areas of the progressive political "elites"? Of course not. By and large these people have been resettled in poorer areas when government dependence is the highest - further depressing those areas.
"Shall We Gather At The River" and sing:
It is all about cementing a dependent class that needs only those in government willing to "take care of them".
Americans who came before us fought and many died so that America could be the greatest Nation the world has known. The citizens of the United States owe our forebearers a debt of gratitude for all that we have. It is unseemly that the government should, in a helter-skelter way, just "give" all this to those who have entered our country illegally, to those who do not wish to assimilate, and worse, to those who desire to subvert our culture.
A conservative will welcome any immigrant, refugee or otherwise, who comes here legally, has skills and the work ethic that will keep them from needing public assistance, follows our laws, and truly desires to meld into our society and become a true American. "Others need not apply."
Issue 7: Climate Change / Global Warming
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
The progress of humans technologically has put the planet and our way of life at risk. CO2 emissions into our atmosphere contribute to an ever increasing rise in global temperatures.
The vast number of scientists and scientific organizations agree that human activity is a significant cause of the rise in global temperatures. The science on this is "settled". The United States must act quickly and decisively to stem the rise in green house gases to obviate a dramatic rise in ocean levels.
The health of our environment is too important not to take action NOW.
A conservative's view on Climate Change / Global Warming:
The entire Climate Change / Global Warning issue is one of the greatest examples of "Follow The Money" that may be found anywhere, any time.
But, before some details, a conservative would absolutely agree that:
Keeping our (and the planet's) environment clean is a mandatory objective. This includes clean water, clean air, reducing greenhouse gases, and having a clean earth. To lack a focus on these would betray common sense - not to mention creating health risks for all of us - both here at home and across the globe.
That being said, on to the topic at large.
Those who favor the human-caused "climate change" / "global warming" theories seem to confuse "weather" with "climate". Because it happens to be warmer where you are does not mean it's not cooler somewhere else. Weather is today, climate is long term, and global climate is for the entire planet really long term.
A few years back the progressives had to change the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". The reason? There was no evidence of any actual "global warming" where their projections had called for significant, near-term upward change.
A bit after this "name change" I did an article focusing on climate change, the fraudulent collection and modeling of climate data, and the billions of dollars being funneled ONLY to those who supported the "human caused" Climate Change theory contrasted with actual, common sense facts. As I mentioned above, if one is looking for what is really going on, "Follow The money". It might be helpful to review my article by Clicking Here.
As I write this (mid-June 2017) several (if not many) prior advocates of Climate Change / Global Warming are changing their tunes. Click Here and Here for examples.
The global warming advocates, perhaps, were better served with their original title. Why? Because, not only does the climate actually change, there is, in fact, global warming going on - as it has for millions of years. Actually, cooling followed by warming followed by cooling, and so on.
Below is a subset of my earlier article focusing on a common sense view of climate change.
First, look at the below chart.
The cooling and warming cycles shown above have gone on for millions of years - the above only captures the last 450,000 years.
Currently, we are mid-way through but the latest warming cycle. And, as you can see, assuming past history is an indication of things to come, we have several thousands of years to go before we hit peak warming for our current cycle.
So, those who predict "global warming" are exactly correct - independent of any human interaction, action, or non-action. But, what has confounded such people is that recently all warming has apparently ceased. No one knows exactly why. Perhaps it is because dealing in such large time scales a recent, shorter period is insignificant.
Remember, anything labeled a "theory", including "Global Warming" / "Climate Change" due to human actions, is ONLY a hypothesis yet to be proven.
No, to a conservative this "theory" is a move to create fear and more and more reliance upon the government to "save us all". It's all about money and control.
Consider the number of progressive political "elites", including certain Hollywood types, who fly around the globe selling the "Global Warming" / "Climate Change" scare. They, of course fly in their own private jets and live in multi-thousand square foot, energy-wasting homes while telling us to drive a Prius to "save the planet".
Can we all gather again at the river and sing another chorus of:
Were one to read the 2004 novel by Michael Crichton, "State of Fear", one could see his fiction become reality with the "Global Warming" / "Climate Change" scare.
Again, a clean environment is one thing; a move to control our citizenry through fear and false science is a whole different matter.
Issue 8: Political Correctness
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
Political Correctness (a.k.a. "PC") is an important facet of today's America. It most importantly is aimed at inclusion of all peoples within our culture. Causing anyone discomfort at the words we use is to be avoided. And, "PC" is not just the spoken word. To single out the more gifted, especially with children, will lead to others feeling "less gifted" or beneath those garnering success. Equally true, but in reverse, is the singling out the less gifted. Doing so will cause feelings of inadequacy. All people have the right to live their lives with a deep felt understanding of their individual worth to themselves and to the community.
Any and all statements perceived in a negative way aimed at minorities or other disadvantaged persons are to be curtailed. Political speech aimed at policies or methods felt to target or otherwise minimalize others should not be tolerated.
In America we are all equal and should be treated as such. Each has abilities and feelings that may not be consistent with others. However, we must all strive to make any and all differences invisible. A person's feelings matter.
Free speech is fundamental to our nation; but, free speech does not include the right to belittle others and does not include the right to encourage the view that "some are more equal than others".
A conservative's view on Political Correctness:
Political Correctness, at its heart, tends to divide people. By constantly reinforcing the notion that certain minorities and people holding certain political views get their feelings hurt by words, even if truthful ones, being uttered, will only focus attention on the very people "PC" is supposedly trying to protect.
By a heightened attention such people are mentally singled out as "a different class" than normal people. This is nothing but a kind of class warfare in its most simple form. Class warfare sets one group against another; it "divides" them.
Prior to the Obama administration "PC" was basically limited to the silly things one heard. For example, calling a janitor a "sanitary engineer". This, one can only suppose, was to enable the "janitor" to feel better about himself and his career choice as if it was "demeaning".
Neither myself nor anyone I respect EVER considered a job, any job "demeaning". People have different jobs requiring different skills. This does not imply one job is "better" than another - even that of a janitor.
The progressives who insist on such foolishness seem not to be aware that there is a profession, requiring a college degree, called a "sanitary engineer". Progressives may not even be aware that by referring to a person by a title which they did not earn could actually make the person feel badly about themselves.
Since Obama first took office "PC" has been on an asymptotic rise in this country - ever expanding in its breadth.
Today's news is filled with stories of college students needing "safe spaces" to protect them from political views that they do not hold; colleges preventing conservative speakers from offering conservative views - at the students insistence, college faculty members being forced to resign for holding conservative vs. progressive political opinions, college students and professors being harassed for espousing other than progressive ideologies, and the list goes on.
A little more about the "Obama years" -
Since he took office any criticism of his policies is deemed "racist" - no matter how many facts exist showing that such policies were bad policies. Everything today seems to be about "race".
There are many things that could be mentioned that indicated Obama was not imbued with the experience to be President. But, his race was not one of them. A person's race has nothing to do with experience or leadership qualities, as examples. What counts are character, experience, and the equal treatment of all.
But, the progressives pressed harder and harder on the "race" issue to divert attention from what many considered bad policies.
Today, these same progressives are castigating President Trump for being "racist". Please, let me know of ANYTHING Trump has done or said that is "racist". But, first, please look up the meaning of the word "racist". Many may find the definition to be something other than they may conceive.
One of the prime tools of progressives is Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'. You, if you look, can see these "rules" being applied almost daily by progressives. Pay attention to rules #5 and #11 and compare them to this topic.
What progressives seem to lose in all this is that, while free speech is every American's right, one who exercises it must take responsibility for any consequences - intended or not - as is offered in This Article.
It is as if the progressives are overtly saying, "free speech is wonderful as long as that speech conforms to progressive ideology."
"PC" is a major tool of the next subject, "Political Animus".
Issue 9: Today's Political Animus
My understanding of a progressive's view on this.
Hillary Clinton garnered approximately 3,000,000 more votes than did Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Yet, Trump became president due to an outdated process whereby the Electoral College actually decides who is our next president.
That is hardly a democratic process. Trump is a racist, is misogynistic, is an Islamophobe, is xenophobic, and seeks only to better the position of the rich and white in this country.
His policies are geared toward destroying all the progress made by President Obama, and, in the process, our Nation. Total resistance to him and his policies must be the marching order for all Americans. Such resistance should take to form of whatever is successful.
A conservative's view on Today's Political Animus:
When President Obama took office (both times) conservatives were as negatively adamant about Obama as progressives are about Trump today. But, there were no widespread protests, no violence, and conservatives would NEVER refuse to let anyone speak on issues political - aside, of course, from someone advocating violence or hatred of any kind. In this country we do have "Free Speech", after all.
It appears that Americans in the aggregate seem to side with conservatives on progressive policies. Since President Obama first took office the progressive Democrats have lost some 1,000 governmental seats of "power" across our Nation.
Conservatives don't, as a rule, protest anything. They will offer opposing opinions, sometimes vigorously - but never gather in groups to protest. Maybe they should, but they don't.
The degree of political animus being witnessed from progressives and being spread by the media does the exact opposite of bringing people together. And, as I suspect, that is the aim of the progressive movement - divide people.
Conservative would NEVER advocate violence in response to things political of any kind. Not so Progressives as illustrated by This Article, as offering only a few examples. If you are interested enough, Here's Another Article. Further, targeting US Congressmen of any party is NOT a conservative's way of expressing political displeasure. And, finally, there is This on progressive's violence response to political ideologies and people for whom they have distain.
Progressives seem to promote that everybody should be treated equally - unless one happens to be Caucasian or unless an idea is offered different that the progressive ideology.
Progressives love to mention that Hillary Clinton received 3,000,000 more votes than did Trump. And, they are correct. However, the popular vote is not how presidents are chosen - with good reason.
Consider: In the State of California, alone, Clinton (curiously enough) received 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. Do the progressives really think it is a good idea that the results of 2% of the states should determine what is good for the other 49 States?
No, the Electoral College is in place for a reason.
Also, progressives are wont to call Trump by every ugly name possible - and their fawning media is all too happy to forward their messages. Unfortunately, the ugly names progressives use are not what the definitions of those names suggest. Their name-calling is wrong at every turn. For a look at the validity of my statement, Click Here.
The above 9 items are only a subset of available subject matter. I welcome a progressive's position on any topic - as long as supporting information is provided. As stated, I am seeking the rationale behind almost any progressive, ideological position. I truly can not find any from anyone.
To restate my purpose for this article, the following is it in a nutshell:
Again, with all the above I am not trying to "convert" anyone; nor am I seeking to be "converted". I just would like the logic, supported with evidence/facts, to support progressives' positions.
You may or may not agree with me on anything. And, that is your right. But, "the curious" await your response.