Category: Politics

Imagine my surprise when the front page top headline story in the Jerusalem Post, my religiously required reading on Friday morning, was on the Mueller report on Donald Trump, his circle and the issue of Russia collusion (Conspiring) and obstruction of justice.  The Post did a reasonably good job of summary.  

I had hoped that the report would end the focus on this, and that the Congress and the President could get on with the issues facing the country.  That was naïve on my part.  Whatever the report said, the Democrats would argue that it showed Trump was guilty even if the report did not show such, and the Republicans would say that it showed he was not guilty.  There is so much spin that avoiding dizziness is almost impossible. What was I to do?  I downloaded the report and read it myself.  Here is my take from a direct reading. 

First, on the issue of collusion and conspiracy, the report was quite clear.  There was no substantial evidence that President Trump, his circle or any American colluded or conspired with the Russians.  This is the big conclusion. However, Democrats are saying that Trumps use of the material that came from Russians and Julian Assange was almost a crime.  Really?  It was in the public domain.  If the Democrats had such material, they would not use it?  Also, the Steele Dossier used against President Trump for this investigation came from Russian sources!  The Democrats argue that the contacts Trump team’s with Russians was somehow terrible when such contacts are par for the course.

The issue of obstruction of justice is more complex.  This section of the report did not conclude that Trump was guilty of obstruction and did not conclude that he was exonerated.  It appears at times that he wanted to end, disrupt or influence the investigation.  However, his advisors and lawyers prevented this, so it did not take place.  Most of the issues of obstruction came from his hard push back against the investigation in public comments.  Could this influence grand juries in an undue way?  There were also cases where he wanted to contain the investigation.  However, none of this happened.  The descriptions of the President in this section are terribly unflattering.  They show that side of the President that his opponents and even some supporters most hate.  However, Mueller did not conclude that he obstructed and noted that different views and disagreements on what constituted obstruction was a factor in not coming to a clear conclusion.  So, there was no conclusion that he did obstruct justice or that he did not. Several past prosecutors and leaders of the justice department noted that it is hard to make an obstruction case when there is no underlying crime. The case is undercut by the first conclusion of no consipiracy/collusion.  Therefore, the issue is trying to disrupt an investigation when the person being investigated is innocent.  Does hindering the investigation or pushing back against it constitute obstruction?  The report says again that this is a matter of disagreement in viewpoints.  Obstruction of an investigation where the person would be found innocent is still on one interpretation obstruction.  But what if the innocent party believes that the investigation itself is unjust and a set up that is presenting false information?  The person in fear may try to prevent such an unjust conclusion.  It is clear that the President did not trust this investigation since the investigation team was a team of almost all Democrats and even some connected to Hillary’s team.  But Trump’s advisors persuaded him to cooperate to an unprecedented level, having his staff testify, providing tons of documents and not claiming likely upholdable executive privilege for some matters.   So the Special Prosecutor did not come to a conclusion.  If there was a clear and provable case of obstruction with corrupt intent the prosecutor would have said so. He left this ambigusous.  There was not such a clear case. The President’s actions were to proclaim his innocence and influence the process so this would be established, not to see a false conclusion made.  Corrupt intent would therefore be very hard to prove.  Congress can establish that his actions were so bad that he could be censored or impeached.  This would go nowhere in the Senate, so is a waste of time. 

Now the Republicans want to investigate possible criminal behavior in the Justice Department, the FBI, the Intelligence Agencies and the State Department that led to the investigation in the first place.  They want to look at why Hillary Clinton was not found guilty in handling classified information and also for obstructing justice (the case there seems very strong).  So if a corrupt regime led to the investigation how could President Trump be guilty of obstruction?  How complex this is?

The danger of both Republicans and Democrats is losing the independents who probably want the country to move on and end all these investigations.   

Recently two events highlighted the tyranny of the left in seeking to shut out discussion of anything that any leftist group rejects.  A mother of a student at a Catholic College criticized young women who wore tights to mass as too revealing and distracting to men.  Then two airports, one in Buffalo and another in San Antonio rejected a Chick-Fil A concession due to their opposition to the LGBT community.   On the first matter, it was not long ago that mothers would teach their daughters that young men (really all men) were very attracted to the female body and dressing in revealing ways was a cause of lustful thoughts in men.  They counseled them to be helpful to the men.  This is quite obvious, but we are not supposed to say this, even if it is dress for the mass.  The intense rejection and protest of this one letter shows the hatred for traditional moral norms.  One comedian who does not care about modesty (he tells many dirty jokes) said his visit to the gym is like observing a gynecology exam.  He gets away with it because he is no proponent of traditional morality, but the reason for the push back is against any assertion of traditional moral sensitivities.  So also with Chick-Fil A: they do not as a corporation oppose the LGBT movement, and their hiring is without discrimination.  But their founder does give to Christian organizations like Athletes in Action which is a Christian group that fosters sexual relations as only intended by God for traditional marriage.  

One could ask why single out Chick-Fil A.  The position of Athletes in Action is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore by their reasoning, any person who supports Catholic Charities should also have their business boycotted.  Any member of a Catholic Church or an Evangelical church should be boycotted.  We are finding that the left now has a list of things that they have defined as no longer subjects for discussion, and that by intimidation they will shut down all discussion.  Here are a few:

1. That human sexual physical relations is intended by God for traditional marriage alone.  
2. That transgenderism is a rejection of clear biological realities. 
3. That transgender treatments are dangerous to the body (This is very scientific)
4. That transgender females (biological men who compete in women’s sports) have an unfair advantage and destroy women’s sports. 
5. That Christianity is God’s way of salvation.  
6. That black on black crime is much more of a serious problem in the cities than police abuses.  
7. That some homosexuals flip and become heterosexuals.  Maybe we should look at this.  After all, some homosexuals speak of gender fluidity. 
8. That the founders of the United States were good men and have to be judged by the progress they made in their age, not by our age.  Their statues should remain, and they should be honored. 
9. That human rights were rooted in the Biblical faith.  

The intimidation has to stop, but only if we rise up and are not intimidated.  These points are legitimate points for discussion have to be asserted and boldly.  Also, it should be noted that the one common element in the intimidation and the claim of hate speech is the hatred mostly of Christianity and traditional morality.  The assertion of traditional morality is said to be hate speech.  We must fight back.  That morality is a great source of world progress.  Family stability based on traditional morality is the key to progress.  We are not demanding that we impose our morality on others, but that we can be proponents of our faith and morality and convince others of the truth. 

My Facebook followers are aware of my position on the hearings on Judge Kavanaugh. They know that I believe that the Democrats were involved in a campaign of personal destructing as part of a power grab. Justice, in my view, was not a motivation at all. Witness how Mrs. Ford was outed so the campaign of personal destruction could begin. During the campaign on the left we were told that the Judge should be judged on the basis of unproven accusations, and that even the lower standard of the preponderance of the evidence was not required since this was a job interview and not a court. When the Judge in anger noted that this was a partisan attack not based in seeking justice he was labeled too partisan! I noted that if Judge Kavanaugh was not approved, it would ruin his life. He has been dropped as a lecturer at Harvard, wondered if he could coach girls basketball, and would probably not be able to continue as an appellate judge. The only exoneration that would save his life was his approval. So the results would be as severe as any court conviction that would find someone guilty of the crime, not of rape, but of harassment and limited assault.

However, I want to speak on the idea that because this was not a court, due process and a standard of innocent until proven guilty, and at least a preponderance of the evidence standard was not required. The famous French Christian thinker, Jaques Ellul, argued that justice is something that we practice in our personal lives way before we are dealing with political issues, courts etc. So I take you back in time to when I was 11 years old. A student sitting behind me was sliding a ruler under my bottom over and over. I turned around and told him to stop. He did not. He did it again and again and I repeatedly told him to stop. My teacher sent us both to the principle for disrupting the class. My mother was called and came to the office. Thankfully the principle listened and my story was credible. But for a season I knew unjust judgment. For many years as a national leader of the Messianic Jewish movement in America things were spread about me by other leaders with no due process, and such things if believed would have ruined my reputation. Many did believe them, but I had so many friends who know these claims were false, and they defended me valiantly.

My point is that due process is not just for courts, though it is a rule for that. Judging on the basis of due process and innocent until proven guilty is a standard for personal relationships, family, business life, school and really in every sphere of life. The standard comes form the Bible and its strong strictures on spreading reports against another without due process. Sometimes the innocent suffer when the preponderance of the evidence standard makes it look like they are guilty and they are not. They are convicted by the court despite being innocent. However, we have to do the best we can and judge on the basis of evidence, when parents settle disputes with children, teachers with students, supervisors at the work place, the elders in governing a congregation, and Senate committees! The idea that sexual assault claims do not require evidence, but that the seriousness of the claim is so great that rules of evidence and innocence are suspended, which is now argued by some Democrats and many in the Women’s March Movement, is so wrong that I will say it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. But this is a tactic only to attack conservatives. Witness Keith Ellison where there is real evidence and many others on the left given a pass because their politics are agreeable. All Franken comes to mind as well. There also are many false claims of sexual assault which are later proven to be false. It is a small percentage, but common enough.

As Senator Susan Collins noted, the destruction of a person’s career and reputation without the preponderance of the evidence standard would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. Let us not think of due process and evidence as only for the courts. It should be a way of life to guide us all in our relationships at all times. Sadly a good part of our society no longer believes in such fairness if their political opponents are the target. Anything goes. This is why the only just solution was the approval of Judge Kavanaugh.

I am a globalist and a nationalist. This is because I believe in the Biblical worldview. All are called to be both. However, we need to define terms.

Today people are slammed for being globalists and for being nationalists. Because terms are not defined, there is little light and much heat. So hear are various meanings for the terms that create so much heat.