One Difference of Opinion that I Refuse to Dignify

 

“The test of faith is whether I can make room for difference.” – Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, “The Dignity of Difference.”

There is not a single person who could attest to me being someone who lacks faith. In fact, I believe that I am one of the most optimistic people I know. I am willing to accept and embrace the other (sometimes too quickly!). I am open to listen to their constructive criticism and comments, acknowledge dignify them and respond graciously.

However, there are some red lines that I refuse to cross.

I realize that not everyone is a warrior who is ready to risk that which they consider important to them, be it their family, their job, or their own safety. I also understand that to ask anyone to sacrifice that which is dear to them at the expense of adhering to integrity and truth, is, perhaps, unfair.

But when they ask me, in return, to dignify their approach and their opinion and accept their stand, they use the occasion to reprove me, label me with their own made-up titles and mock me. And why? Because I refuse to let go of my belief and become their “yes” person.  

Let me be specific. Anyone who has known me, even for a short while, is aware of how staunchly I support Trump and fight obstinately against the injustice and evil that was committed against him. I am, especially, referring to the results of the latest U.S. elections.

I doubt that there are many who will disagree that these elections were rigged. And no, I am not suggesting that there is overwhelming proof that Trump received more votes that Biden. What I am saying, though, is that there is enough proof of irregularities that occurred which, in my view, deems revisiting the subject for the sake of transparency and respect to every single voter. Neither do I demand, nor do I think that everyone who supported and voted for President Trump in the past should continue to exercise loyalty to the person who has been good to many of us, Americans first, and to the rest of the world, as I do. Likewise, I would never expect anyone not to capitulate to political and social pressure and stand by the side of the man, who has been wronged by so many, during his hard times, as they did during his good days.

In that respect, yes, I do dignify their right to hold a different opinion. Freedom of choice and expression are central pillars of the U.S. Democratic Republic. 

My question, rather, my dilemma, though, has nothing to do with my loyalty to one candidate or another. It has everything to do with upholding and dignifying the ethical principles and moral compass upon which this country was founded.

In other words, the rigged election results, the fraudulent manners in which some were obtained and the certification of the electorate, despite the abundant evidence which was not even granted a court hearing, is, in my view, a slap and a spit in the face of the Constitution of “We the People.” This is what, I believe, every decent, law abiding American citizen should also have an issue with.

Instead, I witness nonchalance among some of my fellow Americans who, even upon being presented with evidence of the deceit and the lies employed to produce the fraudulent election results, merely shrug their shoulders, click their tongues, blindly accepted such antics, and move on with their lives as if everything is normal.

They are, of course, entitled to their stance which is light years away from mine. However, to expect me to dignify their difference on this matter is to ask me to embrace lies, fraud, evil and lawlessness. That, I will never do. That, I could never do.

Crossing that red line would go not only against my Jewish upbringing. It would also amount to a violation of the oath of allegiance “to support and defend the American Constitution,” an oath I proudly took when I became a naturalized citizen of this great country, the United States of America.

The Impeachment of Reason

 

Impeachment has become a household word, nowadays. We hear and read that the Legislative branch (yes, the very same one that was created as part of the “checks and balances”) of the U.S. government is planning to impeach former President, Donald J. Trump. We witness many discussions and debates, by various analysts, mostly media people and unfortunately, even some U.S. politicians who are clueless about their own U.S. Constitution, in general and on the Articles of Impeachment, in particular.

Since I am an American, some turn to me to ask my view on this issue, seeking some clarification.

I always suggest that we start by defining terms.

“Impeachment” according to the Cambridge Dictionary is “to make a formal statement saying that a public official is guilty of a serious offence in connection with their job, especially in the US:” This teaches us that impeachment can only apply to a person who holds an official public office.

Next, let us see what the U.S Constitution states regarding impeachment. A basic Google search has produced, among others, an article by the NYTimes. In it, the writer states in plain everyday language that: “The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” I have no reason to doubt the NYTimes on the accuracy of this statement.

What we learn from these two sources then is that:

A. Only a person who is a public official, not a private citizen, can be impeached.

B. The process can be done only while they, in this case, presidents, are still in office.

C. The penalty for an impeached official, upon conviction, is their removal from office. 

As far as I am concerned this is clear, simple, and straightforward. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to be able to grasp the concept. All one needs is a healthy logic and sound reason.

At least that is what I thought until this afternoon.

A friend, a fellow Trump supporter, one who I hold in high esteem, called, and asked me to explain to her what the “impeachment” entailed. I shared her with the above information. She sounded confused.

I decided to simplify it for her by providing an example. “Let’s say,“ I started, “that a lawyer who had been working for a certain law firm for a number of years, decided to leave his job, move to another town and start a clothing business.” So far so good. “Now,” I resumed, “suppose that after he had left his firm, one of his colleagues who resented him, decided to get him fired. Can he do that? Can you fire someone from any place of work where he is no longer employed?” I asked.

“Of course not, “answered my friend without hesitation.

“Great,” I thought to myself. That should be easy. “Now,” I moved on, “let us pretend that the lawyer who left the office, moved to another town, and opened a clothing business, is President Trump…” A long silence on the other side of the telephone line prompted me to ask, “hello, are you still there?”
“Yes,” she responded hesitantly, “but the media keeps telling us that he is still going to be tried. Let us hope you are right, let us……”

“Wait a minute,” I interrupted her. “Do you believe that Donald J. Trump is still in office?” I probed her. “No, of course not,” she answered very confidently. “Biden is the President. The media shows him sitting in the White House signing executive orders……He is the sitting president.”

“Then,” I persisted, “in that case, since Donald J. Trump is not the President, he is now a private citizen like you and I, correct?”

“yes…..”

“Therefore, according to the U.S. Constitution, he cannot be impeached. Unless, of course, there are two presidents or there is something that you and I and many others do not know…..,” I added.

“No,  it is clear that Trump has conceded. He is no longer in the White House,” I heard her assuring answer. I decided to leave my disagreement with her regarding Trump's "conceding" to another occasion. One step at a time.

Just as I was about to heave a big sigh of relief, I heard her say, “But in the news….well,” she added realizing her predicament, “as I said, I hope you are right….”

Unfortunately, she is not the only one who views this unequivocal issue in such a bewildered manner. Many people that I consider intelligent and perceptive seem to have difficulty grasping such a very straightforward issue.

I fear that my friend, along with many others, have lost their ability to think independently. Their judgmental faculties have been assailed and are in danger of being removed from them. They, themselves, it seems, have become subject to an impeachment. In their case, it is the impeachment of reason