A New Year's Resolution (Or "Don't Sweat The Small Stuff")

For the last few days, I've been thinking about what I can do in 2020 to make my life better.  Yes, it's once again time to make those New Year's resolutions, which half of us will break within two months...kidding, but I digress. 

It occurs to me that I frequently involve myself in contentious political debates.  Some of these are rather civil in nature.  However, often the various discussions devolve into shouting matches and petty insults.  They also can produce great anger, which is not healthy for me (or anybody else, for that matter) to have a lot of. 

I realize that anger and division seems to be a national problem, as it runs rampant through our communities.  Knowing this, my main resolution for 2020 is to try to stem the tide of my own personal anger.  This means not involving myself in so many political debates; to an effect, choosing my battles a bit more carefully.  Indeed, not everything is worth the effort of getting upset about it. 

Now on to an interesting sub-topic.  Fellow music history buffs will note that in 1972, country artist Rick Nelson released a song called "Garden Party".  In the song, Nelson tells of his playing an all-star concert at Madison Square Garden (Nelson was booed for his performance, and left the concert early). 

There's a lot of wisdom to be found in music; this particular hit is no exception to that.  I find these to be the most relevant lyrics of said song;

"Well, it's all right now; I learned my lesson well.  You can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself". (1)

I have come to understand that, as Nelson said, I will never be able to please everyone.  This being the case, if people are hell-bent on disagreeing with me, I should let them disagree...and let it go.  
You see, there will always be somebody who disagrees with me; some of these people may even call me an idiot (or worse).  Even so, if I stay true to my own self and my own beliefs, I'll be doing all right. 

This is my primary resolution for 2020; don't get too upset about the little things.  As many have said before, "don't sweat the small stuff; (and) it's all small stuff"!

Rebuttal To Fargo Forum

Author's note: On December 22nd, an editorial appeared in the "Fargo Forum" entitled "How Can Christians Be Trump Supporters?"  As I cannot find how to submit a reply via the paper's website, I am posting such reply here. 
_________________________________________

To Whom It May Concern,

Recently, I had the opportunity to read one of your paper's editorials, this specifically being from the twenty-second of December.  I find myself at odds with the arguments that you have made about President Donald Trump; to wit, I offer this rebuttal.  

In your article, many assumptions are made about the president's behavior and statements.  These suppositions either fail the logic test, or are demonstrably false.  

First, you say that President Trump "has sown division...(and demonized) anyone who disagrees with him".  It is true that we are a nation that, seemingly, is divided.  However, this division didn't start with Trump.  Liberals have been attempting to divide this country for years; frankly, Barack Obama managed to do that to a remarkable effect.  During his eight years in office, Mr. Obama divided us racially, ethnically, and on religious lines.  If you're not willing to call Obama out for his divisive actions, then your criticism on this subject is hypocritical (at best).  

Second, you correctly point out that Trump has appointed many judges who are staunchly against abortion.  Your argument seems to be that by supporting these appointments, religious conservatives "have struck an unsavory bargain".  To this, I wonder about the beliefs of your staff.  Whether you believe this or not, abortion is unquestionably murder.  Does your paper support unrestricted abortions, in this fashion? 

For a moment, allow me to turn your main question on its head.  If your staff indeed does support the legality of abortion, how can your publication even pretend to be a Christian-based newspaper? The simple fact is that you cannot support abortion while being a Christian.  As previously explained, it is murder, whichever way you slice it.  Keeping this in mind, let us remember the Sixth Commandment; "thou shalt not kill".  

Once again, I address your main question, as stated; "if you call yourself a Christian, how can you be a Trump supporter?" My answer to this question is "very easily".  Yes, the president sometimes says and does things that I disagree with.  However, in the bigger picture of "mak(ing) America great", I can forgive these slight disagreements. 

Even if President Trump is your enemy, it is said that we should love our enemies, and "forgive (them their) trespasses, as we forgive those who have trespassed against us".  This belief is at the core of Christianity, in all its forms and sects.  If you're unwilling to forgive your enemies, then perhaps you should reconsider what it means to be a Christian.  You shouldn't sell your soul for political or social gain..."woe to those who do evil, and call it good". 

The New Scare (And Edward Murrow)

The inquiry into the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump has me thinking about a similar time in our nation's history.  

Let us, for the moment, flashback to the early 1950s.  America and her allies had just emerged victorious from World War II; the world was at peace.  This notwithstanding, another menace was beginning to appear on the horizon; the spectre of communism in the United States.  (1)

Fears of communist infiltration were brought to a head when in 1950, US Senator Joseph McCarthy (a Republican from Wisconsin) charged that the State Department was "infested with communists" (McCarthy would later allege that there was also rampant communism in the army). (2)  Enter one Edward R. Murrow, the host of a CBS program called "See It Now".  Criticizing the senator, Murrow said,

"It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly.  His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind...we must remember that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law." (3)

It seems to me that history is repeating itself.  Congressman Adam Schiff has taken it upon himself to investigate our president, which he has every right to do.  The problem, then, is not in the investigation itself, but the denial of due process.  The defense has not been allowed to present any witnesses, nor have they been afforded the opportunity to question Schiff's witnesses.  And we STILL don't have any clue as to the identity of the congressman's "whistleblower".  

Nevertheless, this does not matter to Schiff and his fellow Democrats.  The only thing that matters is that the president is guilty, the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" be damned.  Congressman Schiff has stepped over the proverbial line; he is not merely investigating, he is persecuting.  

Now, it is obvious to me that Adam Schiff has become today's Joseph McCarthy.  Perhaps there are some personalities willing to challenge the congressman, but I'm not seeing that.  It is unfortunate to note that there seems to be no Edward R. Murrow among today's media.  If this is indeed the case, I am willing to take on that role.  

Mr. Schiff's shenanigans must be called out for what they are; unfounded, destructive, and a grave danger to our republic.  For as long as this sham of a procedure goes, I will be "in the catbird's seat", challenging the Democrats at every turn.  Call me a rabble-rouser if you want, but I cannot stand by and let this perverted power play go unchecked.  Indeed, I say that "it is better to raise hell than to live in it".  

An International Injustice

Have you heard about the case of one Linda Carty? She is an American and British citizen who has been convicted of the murder of a "Joana Rodriguez" (such conviction having happened in 2002).  Ms. Carty claims that, owing to her previous status as a drug informant, she has been framed in this case.  However, state and federal courts disagree with this assessment, and all of Carty's appeals have been exhausted.  (1)

Carty now sits on death row in the state of Texas, awaiting her execution. (1)  Her only hope to be spared now lies with receiving a pardon from President Donald Trump.  

Here's a bit of background on the issues surrounding this case.  

Issue #1: Recanted Testimony.  

 Several witnesses, having testified for the prosecution, later testified that they lied under oath (due to threats made by said prosecution). (2)  Nevertheless, state prosecutors deny that any such threats were made. (3)  Two questions present themselves here, both dealing with the issue of credibility.  First, might the witnesses have lied about threats that were allegedly made to them? Second, why would said witnesses tell such lies, if indeed the allegations of prosecution threats are false? These questions have been left unanswered to this day.  

Issue #2: Rule of Law/Assumption of Innocence.  

 According to the state court, the possibility of false statements having been made is "immaterial", and does not matter.  The defendant has been convicted; as such, "what's done is done".  

"Ultimately, it (does) not matter whether Carty was the ringleader...whether Carty entered Rodriguez's apartment, whether Robinson actually saw Carty put the bag over Rodriguez's head, or even whether Rodriguez was dead when Robinson tore the plastic bag that was wrapped around Rodriguez's head...Carty was convicted as a party to capital murder" -- State Court's Decision Regarding Appeal (of Defendant)  (3)

Let's take a look at that again.  The Court specifically says that the question of Carty's innocence "DOES NOT MATTER".  

 In America, the accused is "innocent until proven guilty".  If the prosecution does not prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt", then the defendant must be acquitted.  Now, if the original testimony of the prosecution witnesses was false, isn't that enough to establish "reasonable doubt"?  (4)

 In addition, does the Court mean to say that the presumption of innocence no longer matters, and that if the state says you're guilty, you're guilty? How "Nineteen Eighty-Four" like that is; "two and two make five, if the Party wishes it"!  (5)

Other Issues:

• The court-appointed lawyer for the defense was clearly incompetent.  Said attorney failed to cross-examine witnesses, and also failed to raise several different legal arguments.  These failures having taken place, the defendant had no chance to be acquitted.  (2)  

• The defendant (as previously stated) is a dual American/British citizen, having been born in a Caribbean territory of the United Kingdom.  That territory is now an independent nation; at the time of the defendant's arrest, it was a British colony.  By international law, British ambassadors are required to be notified immediately upon the arrest of a British citizen.  In the case of Ms. Carty, this notification didn't take place until after Carty's conviction and sentencing.  (6)

• The defendant has testified that, in a violation of due process, she was not allowed access to counsel during her interrogation(s).  (7)

This is the kind of legal case that makes me shake my head.  Ms. Carty is sitting on death row largely due to questionable evidence, as well as "shady" tactics by the prosecution.  To say that this is an injustice is, in my humble opinion, inaccurate.  Rather, it should be said that this case is an INTERNATIONAL injustice.  I hope to see this injustice soon addressed via the remedy of presidential pardon.  Let's get that pardon done and issued, President Trump...before it's too late.  

(Disclaimer: I have no legal qualifications, and do not claim to be an attorney.  This is simply the opinion of an informed and "concerned citizen")