Status Report to the Stakeholders

Let’s say we’re going to look at the status of our nation, in a way similar to a report to the governing board of a corporation. Let’s say “We the People” are both the stakeholders and the board in this analogy, although technically it’s a report to the Congress as board. We have met together to hear the CEO report the status of what’s important to our “corporation.”

What is important to us? How are we doing on our mission? What are the relevant business results that show our level of success?

We need to know our mission, which is provided in our founding documents.

There’s the overall mission, from the Declaration of Independence, to protect life, liberty, and property.

There’s the granting of limited powers with which to accomplish that mission, summarized in the Preamble to the Constitution:

·         Establish justice

·         Insure domestic tranquility

·         Provide for the common defense

·         Promote the general welfare (well-being for all the states)

·         Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

We enable the government to do these things through certain enumerated powers, which are listed in the Constitution. (I’ve detailed them here.) And we’ve also delineated limitations to that power—boundaries—some of which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

So if our “corporation” is doing well, we should be able to see that. There should be metrics that show it. The relevant business results are going to include things related to the economy, including economic growth, employment statistics, and meeting revenue and budget expectations.

There will also be national security metrics, concerning things such as peace vs. war, and boundary security. And our nation’s security will also include measures of judicial system success.

We will want to see that things are being run well, and that the good things will be perpetuated.

This is the kind of report that the State of the Union address is expected to be. It hasn’t always been that. Often it has been a list of goodies a president promises to pass out, pandering to as many constituencies as possible in order to secure their votes in the next election. The success of such a speech is based on how many constituencies got their gifts.

That’s not really ever acceptable. While there is some future-speak that might be acceptable when the SOTU comes up just weeks after a president’s inauguration—when he’s laying out plans but hasn’t had much chance to have anything take effect yet—during all other years the SOTU ought to be mainly a progress report.

President Donald Trump, State of the Union 2020
screenshot from here

So let’s look at the progress markers laid out Tuesday night. (I got the transcript here.) 

President Trump starts right in with an overview of the progress report to come:

Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving and highly respected again. America’s enemies are on the run, America’s fortunes are on the rise, and America’s future is blazing bright….

I am thrilled to report to you tonight that our economy is the best it has ever been. Our military is completely rebuilt, with its power being unmatched anywhere in the world — and it is not even close. Our borders are secure. Our families are flourishing. Our values are renewed. Our pride is restored. And for all these reasons, I say to the people of our great country, and to the Members of Congress before me: The State of our Union is stronger than ever before!

Sounds good. Is there data to back this up? A good presenter in a board meeting would have some.

I’m doing this as an exercise. The reported items in the speech come under three categories: economic, national security, and domestic culture. Some items have more hard data attached than others. And I’m sure the fact checkers are hard at work to parse them. I’m not doing that at this point. (When I do, I’ll be looking to JustFacts.com, which I trust more than the more biased media fact checkers.) If the president offers data, I’m assuming it’s essentially accurate. If he’s projecting something for the future, I try to identify it as a projection or promise.

Houston Chronicle front page, Feb 5, 2020

It was a long speech, 78 minutes. And I’m trying to be thorough in this exercise. So feel free to skim the lists. You can see at a glance, for example, that there’s a whopping amount of economic good news in this first list. I mostly offer the items in the order he gives them. Some might apply to more than one category, so in those cases I made a judgment call.

The Economy

Here’s the economic data he offers:

·         7 million new jobs—5 million more than government projections.

·         Unemployment rate is the lowest in over half a century.

·         Average unemployment rate lower than any administration in the history of our country.

·         Record low unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans.

·         Unemployment rate for women at 70 year low.

·         Unemployment rate for veterans dropped to record low.

·         Unemployment rate for disabled Americans reached all-time low.

·         Unemployment rate for workers without a high school diploma reached lowest rate in US history.

·         Women filled 72% of all new jobs added last year.

·         Record number of young Americans are now employed.

·         African-American poverty rate lowest ever recorded.

·         In contrast to the last administration, which added 10 million to food stamp rolls, 7 million have come off food stamps, and 10 million have been lifted off welfare.

·         In the last 8-year administration, 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce; in 3 years of this administration 3.5 million working age people have joined the workforce.

·         Net worth of bottom half of wage-earners increased by 47%—which is 3 times faster than increase for the top 1%.

·         Wages are at last rising—and rising fastest for low-income workers: 16% pay increase during 3 years of this administration.

·         Real median household income now at highest level ever recorded.

·         Stock markets have risen 70%—adding $12 trillion to the nation’s wealth.

·         Stock market rises has meant the millions of people with 401(k)s and pensions are doing better than ever, with increases of 60% to as high as 100%.

·         Stock market rises have allowed other countries to also do well.

·         Consumer confidence is high.

·         Tax breaks for designated Opportunity Zones have meant wealth from individuals and companies has been invested in 9000 previously neglected poor neighborhoods, creating jobs, energy, and excitement.

·         Regulatory reduction has led US to become number 1 producer of oil and natural gas.

·         America is now energy independent, and energy jobs are at a record high.

·         Under last two administrations 60,000 factories were lost; under this administration, 12,000 new factories added, with thousands more planned or being built.

·         Over half a million new manufacturing jobs created.

·         Companies that had left the US are returning.

·         USMCA signed 6 days ago, projected to create nearly 100,000 American auto jobs, and to boost exports for farmers, ranchers, and factory workers—with greater level of fairness and reciprocity.

·         Tariff strategy to confront China’s theft and product piracy has worked; days ago a new agreement was signed with China expected to protect our intellectual property, bring in billions of dollars to the treasury, and open up new markets for US products.

That’s a pretty good list—all of it on record, and nearly all of it already accomplished and measurable. Just a few are new with projections. Among the other good news, we’ll remain hopeful that those projections will become reality as well. But mostly, I just want to say, "Wow!"

 

Rush Limbaugh is given the Medal of Freedom during the speech
screenshot from here

National Security

Next comes national security, which includes America’s standing in the world, international relations, military, border security, and maintaining lawfulness. In this category, what he’s done can be listed as an accomplishment, but it may take some time for measurements (history) to show results.

·         Failed policies on Cuba have been reversed.

·         Policies now support restoring democracy for Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

·         US leads 59-nation diplomatic coalition against socialist dictator Maduro in Venezuela, and supporting legitimately elected president Juan Guaidó (who was present at the speech).

·         Investing $2.2 trillion in US military—for planes, missiles, rockets, ships, and equipment.

·         NATO contributions from allies has been raised by $400 billion; number of allies meeting their minimum obligations has more than doubled.

·         New branch of US Armed Forces has been created: The Space Force. This is the first since the creation of the Air Force 70+ years ago.

·         Over 100 miles of new border wall completed on southern border, projected to be over 500 miles by early next year, adding to “our already very-strongly guarded southern border.”

·         And as the wall goes up, drug seizures rise, and border crossings go down.

·         He supports ICE officers, who last year arrested more than 120,000 criminal aliens charged with nearly 10,000 burglaries, 5,000 sexual assaults, 45,000 violent assaults, and 2,000 murders.

·         In the last 3 years ICE has arrested over 5,000 human traffickers; 9 pieces of legislation have been signed to stamp out human traffic here and globally.

·         He warns of damage caused by sanctuary city and state policies, and he supports passing the Senate’s Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act.

·         His administration has ended Catch-and-release policies for illegal aliens. We now have cooperation agreements with Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, resulting in a drop in illegal crossings: down 8 straight months, down 75% since May.

·         He is working on legislation to replace outdated and randomized immigration system with one based on merit, following the rules, contributing to our economy, and upholding our values.

·         The administration is restoring the rule of law; so far 187 new federal judges who will uphold the Constitution have been confirmed, including 2 Supreme Court Justices.

·         This administration defends religious liberty, including right to pray in public schools; we don’t ban symbols of faith or muzzle preachers and pastors.

·         He promises to always protect our 2^nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

·         This administration defends our national security and combats radical Islamic terrorism.

·         He announced a plan last week for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

·         Before this administration, ISIS held over 20,000 sq. miles in Iraq and Syria; today ISIS as territorial caliphate has been eliminated, and ISIS found Al-Baghdadi is dead.

·         We are willing to support the Iranian people if they ask for help against their oppressive regime, by easing sanctions.

·         Peace talks are underway in Afghanistan. We have no will to kill innocent Afghanis, and our military must either fight to win or not at all; we are working to bring our troops home.

He’s reporting that these policies are in place. The outcomes are mostly to be measured in the future. But, with what he’s already actually accomplished, the America First theme is persuasive.

Domestic Culture

Next come cultural things. How are the people doing in their lives? This is where the Constitution is mostly silent, and our government has overstepped. So I look for reduction of federal interference—there is some. And I look for encouraging state and local responsibility in place of a federal government that usurps powers not granted—and there is some of this as well. Still, this category is where I’m likely to have more things I disagree with. I’m pleased that at least the government giveaways list isn’t longer. I considered color-coding this list, but I’ll let you think through what is government overreach. Let’s see what he says:

·         Education is encouraged, so school choice is encouraged. He praises the 18 states that have created Opportunity Scholarship programs, with tens of thousands on waiting lists. He calls out Pennsylvania’s governor for vetoing school choice expansion for 50,000 children.

·         He calls on Congress to pass the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act to give one million children in failing schools the opportunity of school choice.

·         He praises the First Lady’s “Be Best” initiative—"to advance a safe, healthy, supportive, and drug-free life for the next generation, online, in school, and in our communities.”

·         Through Pledge to American Workers, over 400 companies have promised to provide new jobs and education opportunities to 15 million Americans.

·         He asks Congress to support his budget plan to offer vocational and technical education in every high school.

·         He touts achieving “record and permanent” funding for historically Black colleges.

·         In 5 years prior to this administration (once Obamacare was implemented), health insurance premiums more than doubled; new plans under this administration are 60% less expensive.

·         He pledges to protect patients with pre-existing conditions.

·         He promises to protect Medicare and Social Security.

·         He signed an executive order requiring price transparency in medical billing.

·         Pledges to protect Americans from socialist takeover of American healthcare—as has been endorsed, he says, “by 132 lawmakers in this room,” which would wipe out private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.

·         He warns that the plan endorsed by those 132 lawmakers would provide free taxpayer-funded healthcare to millions of illegal aliens, enticing unlawful border crossing, and raiding Medicare benefits to pay for that. He calls for legislation to prevent free healthcare to illegal aliens.

·         This administration has approved a record number of affordable generic drugs; medicines are being approved by the FDA faster than ever before.

·         Last year, first time in 51 years, costs of prescription drugs went down.

·         He calls for legislation to dramatically lower prescription drug prices.

·         Drug overdose deaths declined for first time in nearly 30 years. Hardest hit states down: Ohio down 22%, Pennsylvania down 18%, Wisconsin down 10%. Asserts commitment to beat the opioid epidemic.

·         The administration is coordinating with China to safeguard against Coronavirus outbreak; he pledges to safeguard our citizens.

·         His administration offers initiative to help with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health challenges.

·         Congressional funds he requested are being applied in pursuit of cures for childhood cancer and the AIDS epidemic within a decade.

·         He asks Congress for $50 million more to fund neonatal research, where 50% of very premature babies now survive.

·         He has offered Federal workforce paid family leave, as a model. He calls for Congress to pass Advancing Support for Working Families Act to extend family leave to American mothers and fathers.

·         40 million families receive an average $2,200 extra in child tax credit.

·         He has overseen historic funding increases for childcare, enabling 17 states to reduce or eliminate their waitlists, and he urges expansion of such funding.

·         Days ago he announced the One Trillion Trees Initiative, working with private sector to plant new trees in America and around the world, to help protect the environment.

·         He supports passing Senate infrastructure bill for new roads, bridges, and tunnels.

·         He commits to ensuring high-speed internet to every citizen, including rural America.

·         He asks for full funding of the Artemis program, returning American astronauts to the moon and going to Mars.

2-year-old survivor of very premature birth,
Ellie Schneider, with her mother, Robin
screenshot from here

There was a lot that was inspiring. No one but Reagan ever did the presentation this well—the show-rather-than-tell strategy. The guests in the gallery, from a 2-year-old survivor who was born at 21 weeks’ gestation; to a soldier who got to surprise his family with his return from deployment; to radio legend Rush Limbaugh being given the highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom; these were touching moments, with people who connected us to the otherwise abstract.

President Trump does ceremony well. He clearly loves and respects our great nation.

The speech wasn’t all data. It was often inspiring. Because there is something real that we call the American Dream, I want to share some inspiring words near the end of the speech:

The American Nation was carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and women ever to walk the face of the Earth. Our ancestors braved the unknown; tamed the wilderness; settled the Wild West; lifted millions from poverty, disease, and hunger; vanquished tyranny and fascism; ushered the world to new heights of science and medicine; laid down the railroads; dug out canals, raised up the skyscrapers—and, ladies and gentlemen, our ancestors built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making it greater than ever before.

This is our glorious and magnificent inheritance.

We are Americans. We are the pioneers. We are the pathfinders. We settled the new world; we built the modern world; and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God.

America is the place where anything can happen. America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true.

He did not mention the impeachment. Not a word. He did occasionally mention the failures of his predecessors, but not as much as he might have. This was a speech worth saving. Even if it must be in the ripped form the Speaker of the House left it in.

Behind President Trump, Speaker Pelosi rips up the speech
screenshot from here

As a report to the stakeholders, we ought to like the data. Our typically anti-conservative Houston Chronicle even admitted he’d made the case for a second term (photo above), although the article is pretty grudging about giving him any credit. 

As a stakeholder, though, I look especially at the economic and national security data above, and I really want more of that.

Dissolving the Political Bands

This past week was a historic time. The impeachment trial ended with a vote that there was no need for calling defense witnesses, or any prosecution witnesses in addition to the 18 testimonies given in the House. The official acquittal should happen Wednesday. It would be a good thing if some brave Democrat broke away from the pack, to at least make the acquittal bipartisan.

While that has been going on, the President signed the new USMCA treaty. He attended and spoke at the March for Life. He proposed a possibly workable peace solution in the Middle East. More Constitution-following judges have been appointed. Trade disputes with China seem to be working toward a better conclusion than expected. Economic news is good. There’s probably more good news—which we're sure to hear about in Tuesday night's State of the Union address. Imagine the good we might get done without the distraction of Democrats claiming he should be stopped.

But beyond our shores, the big news is the final deadline of Brexit. Friday was the last day that the UK was part of the European Union. It was a long time coming. The British people voted in favor of leaving the EU in 2016—almost four years ago. That’s a long time to get things lined up for what should be a fairly simple process.

Nigel Firage, final address to EU Parliament
screenshot from here

But the good thing is that it was accomplished—without bloodshed.

As we know from the Declaration of Independence,

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

Declaring the causes is what the rest of the Declaration of Independence does.

Here in Texas, we’re a month away from celebrating our declaration of independence from Mexico, which accomplished a similar purpose.

In these cases, as with Brexit, there was a necessity to separate, to dissolve the political bands. It’s a rare thing indeed to have this happen without bloodshed. Congratulations to the Brits.

Nigel Farage has been their minister to the EU parliament for some twenty years—all of that time attempting to work himself out of a job by exiting. As he said in his brief farewell address to that Parliament, a couple of days ahead of the deadline,

My mother and father signed up to a common market, not to a political union. Not to flags, anthems, presidents—and now you even want your own army.

The European Union was not sold as a “United States of Europe”; it was sold as a joint economic alliance. What it became was usurpation of power worthy of admiration from many a dictator. And the voice of the people has been squelched. As Farage pointed out,

In 2005 I saw the Constitution that had been drafted by Giscard and others. I saw it rejected by the French in a referendum. I saw it rejected by the Dutch in a referendum. And I saw you in these institutions ignore them, bring it back as a Lisbon Treaty and boast you could ram it through without there being referendums. Well, the Irish did have a vote, and did say no, and were forced to vote again. You’re very good at making people vote again.

But what we’ve proved is, the British are too big to bully—thank goodness!

If the EU had been what it claimed originally to be, only an economic alliance, there would not be a Brexit. But the UK was fed up with their sovereignty being ignored. They were fed up with decisions important to them being overridden by some bureaucrats in a foreign city. They wanted to retake their sovereignty, to be their own country again. It was as simple as that.

Brexit supporters celebrate in London as the
clock reaches 11 PM on January 31, 2020
image found here

There are some complicated details, to reset trade negotiations that must change under the new circumstances, happening over the next 11 months. But as Farage summed it up:

Once we’ve left, we are never coming back, and the rest, frankly, is detail.

Congratulations to our friends! Like them, “We love Europe; we just hate the European Union.” We don’t hate a people, or a nation. We’re in opposition to a statist tyranny wherever we find it.

It occurs to me to ask the theoretical question of what it would take for such an exit in our indivisible United States. We are not the same type of project as the EU; we are not a simple economic agreement that morphed into a centralized total government. But it’s helpful to remember what we are and what we did not agree to.

Our government was created to join multiple sovereign states (which means actual self-governing nations, not provinces) under an umbrella central government with limited purposes. That government, according to the preamble to the Constitution, is to

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

There are enumerated powers granted to this federal government. Nothing else. And there’s a pretty solid list of what the federal government cannot do, just for clarity. (I listed the powers and restrictions here and here.)  We have this all written out in our Constitution. We are a people with the rule of law, rather than ruler’s law.

So, theoretically, as long as we have our Constitution protecting us, we are indivisible. But what happens if powers are usurped, and some ruler steps in dictatorially ignoring our Constitution?

We’ve had small-to-medium usurpations going on since the beginning. Andrew Jackson did some. Teddy Roosevelt did some. Woodrow Wilson did a lot, and he set things in motion for more and more usurpations. Franklin Roosevelt pushed the envelope further.

We had more than we could stomach under Obama. The Supreme Court struck down his attempts at rule-by-dictate 96 times. There were other times he got away with things—like Obamacare, which was the first time the government was allowed to force people to purchase a good or service against their will. But Obama was frequently checked by the courts, at a much higher rate than his predecessors. He lost 44 cases unanimously, which of course included his own appointees. 

But, now, we have an entire slate of Democrat presidential candidates who openly propose socialism as a replacement to our constitutional government and free market system.

Socialism is dictatorship. It is ruler’s law. Adding the word “democratic” before the term is akin to “democratic slavery,” which is what slavery was before we eliminated it in a bloody war. A majority voting to take liberty, life, or property from some minority may make it democratic, but it’s still slavery.

What if one of these openly socialist candidates were to win? Would this break the contract that unites our states? Not immediately—and the checks and balances in the Constitution are key. It would definitely be a problem if such a president were to be aligned with a socialist majority in both the House and the Senate. But for at least a time the judicial branch can rule against such a president’s edicts. We appreciate the success President Trump has had in appointing two read-the-law judges to the Supreme Court, and—well, here’s the count as of today according to Wikipedia:

As of February 3, 2020, the United States Senate has confirmed 187 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 50 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 133 judges for the United States District Courts, and 2 judges for the United States Court of International Trade. There are currently 18 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate action, including 1 for the Courts of Appeals, 16 for the District Courts and 1 for the Court of International Trade. There is currently 1 vacancy on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 72 vacancies on the U.S. District Courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade, and 7 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term (1 for the Courts of Appeals and 6 for District Courts). Trump has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts.

President Trump appoints Justice Neil Gorsuch
image from Wikipedia

That is significant for years to come. Whatever else he may have as a legacy, he will have this improvement in the judiciary for which we can be grateful.

There may someday come a time when an administration is supported by Congress, and not checked by a judiciary, in ruling by dictate and ignoring the Constitution. In such a circumstance, individual states could feel fully justified to “dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another.” But if that ever comes, let it be without bloodshed, as Brexit has been.

While it’s a scary thing to have an entire political party threatening us with a socialist takeover, we’re still, so far, guaranteed our freedoms by the rule of law—the Constitution. If, as Benjamin Franklin said, we can keep it.

Prosecution and Defense

What is that ancient curse? May you live in interesting times! We certainly do.

I didn’t tune in to hour-after-hour of the Senate impeachment hearings, but, as with many people, I’ve been playing catch up at the end of the day, to find out the key points that were made.

There are better sources than this blog for all those summaries. But I guess I’m the expert on what interests me and what I think about things. So that is what we’ll cover here today.

First, as we have noted for well over a month, the House has not charged President Trump with any crimes. No lawbreaking whatsoever. While in the hysteria leading up to the impeachment, they floated words like quid pro quo (meaning literally “this for that,” or an exchange, which is not necessarily illegal) and bribery. But that wasn’t what the evidence showed.

So the summary of the charges comes down to, President Trump asked the President of Ukraine to investigate corruption, which included a company called Burisma, which has Hunter Biden, son of former VP Joe Biden, on its board.

Those impeaching the president make the claim that there is no possible motive for this request other than to damage a political opponent in the upcoming election.

The impeachment prosecution must, therefore, prove not only that that was the motive, but that no other possible motive exists.

The House called 18 witnesses. They passed the testimony along to the Senate—except for one, which remains cloaked in secrecy somewhere in the recesses of Adam Schiff’s private lair.

While an impeachment is not exactly a court trial, it is analogous to think of the impeachment articles, and all that was done in the House, as the prosecution’s case. When they pass along the articles of impeachment, that is akin to the prosecutors saying, “The prosecution rests its case.”

Pam Bondi, of the White House defense team,
details Biden Ukraine connection
screenshot from here

When the Senate takes up the case, they have a couple of options beyond holding a further trial. One is to look at the evidence and say, “No, the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [the president] is guilty of these charges,” and they could rule not guilty.

Or they could look at the evidence and say, “He may have done these things he’s charged with but still not be guilty of something requiring his removal from office,” and they could rule not guilty.

Either of these they could do based on the prosecution only. If the prosecution presented an insufficient case, the Senate can dismiss without needing the White House team to mount a defense beyond their opening arguments. And let’s be certain we understand—no defense was allowed by the House. No defense witnesses were called. No testimony that contradicted the prosecution testimony has been allowed—which is probably why that one testimony is kept hidden. In an actual court trial, that and any other evidence must be disclosed to the defense. Nothing about Schiff and his process has been fair, or even anything close to resembling due process, which every person—including a president—is entitled to.

Speaking of Schiff, he is literally guilty of perjury. He claimed, during the answering of questions—while he is under oath—that he unequivocally does not know who the whistleblower is, that his team never met with, helped, or otherwise corroborated with the whistleblower. But we know that is factually false. His team had already admitted otherwise. Schiff, during House hearings, refused to have questions asked that were going to lead to identifying the whistleblower—questions that, if he didn’t know who the whistleblower was, he could not have known would lead to identifying him.

Can we charge Schiff with perjury—and impeach him for that crime? Son Political Sphere says, maybe the DOJ could charge him. The House could impeach him, but they would have to have to will to do so.

About that whistleblower. There has been blowback against Chief Justice Roberts for refusing to ask questions from Senator Rand Paul—two days in a row. The name of the whistleblower must have been revealed to Justice Roberts, or he would not know to prevent the question. Who revealed it to Justice Roberts, if not Schiff and team? Rand Paul says, in a tweet, that his exact question was,

Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together, and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings? 

He points out in another tweet,

My question is not about a “whistleblower” as I have no independent knowledge on his identity. My question is about known Obama partisans within the NSC and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun. 

Chances are high that Senator Paul has a strong suspicion of who the whistleblower is, since he has been identified in media for several months as Eric Ciaramella.

In a recent episode of Verdict, Senator Ted Cruz’s daily podcast on the impeachment, which showed up after late Wednesday night questioning, he talks about some of the questions that were asked. While he submitted a dozen ahead of time, only one of those got asked. He submitted another four from the floor, which is a sort of cross-examination, done by notecards handed in to be read by the Chief Justice. Three of these got asked, two of them were handed to other senators to submit. One of Cruz’s questions indirectly addressed the whistleblower. As Senator Cruz tells it, he asked,

Did the whistleblower ever work for Joe Biden? If so, did he work for Joe Biden on issues involving Ukraine? If so, did he assist in any material way with the quid pro quo that Joe Biden executed when he demanded that Ukraine fire the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma, the company paying his son a million bucks a year?

Ted Cruz, Verdict episode 8, screenshot from here

Schiff completely refused to answer. Instead he offered a prepared speech on preserving the sanctity of whistleblowers and protecting their identity.

Recall, when this first came out, Schiff couldn’t wait for the whistleblower to testify in an impeachment trial. That was his intention. I don’t know if there is a direct correlation, but Glenn Beck came out with an investigative report on corruption in Ukraine—and how players in that story were key in coming up with the false information used in the FISA warrant in the first place, allowing surveillance of presidential candidate Trump and some former staff. Suddenly Schiff turned on a dime and absolutely insisted no one should ever know the whistleblower’s identity (after his staff had already admitted their contact). Later Beck investigations noted that Ciaramella’s name kept popping up. They found his name on various documents prior to knowing he was the whistleblower.

Glenn Beck, explaining the Ukraine Scandal, October 4, 2019
screenshot from here

BTW, whistleblowers' identity is not sacred. Their jobs are protected, so they can’t be fired for coming forward. But they don’t get to accuse anonymously.

What Senator Cruz is pointing out is that the “whistleblower,” who had no first-hand knowledge of the president’s phonecall and was therefore in no position to blow a whistle, had a self-preservation motive to prevent the investigation into the Burisma-Biden connection from going forward, because he could personally be found guilty in that corruption. Let me repeat that: the whistleblower’s motive, when he heard that Trump was interested in investigating the Burisma-Biden connection, was to prevent discovery of the whistleblower’s own involvement in that prosecutable wrongdoing.

Was it corrupt, what Joe Biden did? In another question, Senator Cruz expanded—and made more accurate—a hypothetical that Schiff had put forward. Cruz’s version, as he retells it on his podcast, was handed to Lindsey Graham to ask:

Using Mr. Schiff’s hypothetical, if President Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney’s son was being paid a million dollars a year by a corrupt Russian company—Schiff’s hypo was Russian instead of Ukraine—and Romney had acted in his official capacity to benefit that company, would Obama have had the authority to ask that the potential corruption be investigated?

As Cruz adds,

It’s not randomly, “Hey, investigate this guy.” It’s if you’ve got evidence—that on the face of it looks pretty crooked.

As I’m writing, the decision on whether to call witnesses is getting close to be voted on. That vote may even take place today. (Maybe it has while I’m not tuned in.)

There are many Americans (as high as 70%) who think there should be witnesses called. But both sides have very different ideas of who those should be. The defense ought to have the right to call the whistleblower, because it is unthinkable that a person can be convicted in America without being allowed to face his accuser—to know who makes the accusation, and to explore that person’s motives and truthfulness.

Joe Biden brags about getting Ukraine prosecutor fired.
screenshot from here

And then there’s the possibility of calling Hunter Biden and maybe Joe Biden. I’d like to know from Joe Biden—who claimed he had to fire the prosecutor in that quid pro quo that he brags about on video—what evidence did he have that the Ukrainian prosecutor into his son’s corrupt business dealings was too corrupt to remain in office? What were the complaints about that prosecutor? Where did they come from?

Because, if that was the motive instead of what it looks like, there must be supporting evidence. If not, then probably it was what it looks like—abuse of power for personal purposes. The very thing, ironically, that the Democrats have been yelling from the rooftops is disqualifying for a president.

Do I care about hearing from John Bolton? Not really. The only possible contribution would be what his personal opinion is of President Trump’s motives. He can’t know those motives—the other witnesses could not either. The defense already had the opportunity to hear from Bolton. All they had to do was get a court to override the president’s claim of executive privilege. Rather than do that, they withdrew the subpoena, saying they did not need to hear from him. So their tearful cries for him now are disingenuous. And, I’ll add, they can’t claim the president “obstructed Congress” if he didn’t defy a court-ordered subpoena. Congress didn’t do its part to get legally obstructed. (And, as I’ve heard said, a lot of people voted for Trump so he would “obstruct” Congress, which is obviously not a crime; it’s a feature of the separation of powers.)

If there were to be witnesses, and along with that there’s some claim that there needs to be fairness, we need to remember that 18 witnesses have already testified for the prosecution. Until there have been that many witnesses for the defense, let’s not talk about any “you get one and we get one.”

Since I don’t trust the Republicans to adopt that hard line, I would prefer they hear from none.

The White House defense team has presented more than ample evidence that there was plenty of incentive for President Trump to care about corruption in Ukraine, where billions in aid had already disappeared into a corrupt black hole. The Burisma-Biden connection is in the middle of that, but it’s not by any means the whole corruption story.

What have we learned from this whole impeachment ordeal? These Democrats are corrupt. They lie. They do not believe in due process, truth, or the Constitution. They were unable to come up with anything treasonous, anything that could be called bribery, or any other thing that would similarly jeopardize the country—in other words, anything worthy of impeachment.

Ben Garrison cartoon

They couldn’t even come up with a misdemeanor. They started on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, and they haven’t stopped. They have found nothing to charge him with. Yet they have put the country through this attempt at a coup for their own selfish purposes.

The biggest takeaway is that, for someone they claim is evil on a Hitlerian scale, Trump sure is law-abiding.

Missing Those We Never Met

We have a memorial hymn that applies this week. It begins,

Each life that touches ours for good

Reflects thine own great mercy, Lord;

Thou sendest blessings from above

Thru words and deeds of those who love.

On Saturday, the world lost basketball great Kobe Bryant, along with his daughter and a total of 9 in a helicopter crash. I don’t have a lot to say, except that it’s tragic when accidents like this happen. All of these people will have close loved ones that will feel the pain of loss, and we send our sympathies. I don’t know the beliefs of those in the accident, but the evidence is they touched many lives for good.

I was already planning to talk about missing a good person who passed away last week—another person I never met, but who touched many lives for good. Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School professor, died January 23, at age 67, following a fight with cancer. There’s a nice obituary piece in the Deseret News, in which I got some of this information.

Clay Christensen, at Governor's Utah Economic Summit in 2014
image from here

Christensen is best known for the term “disruptive innovation.” He introduced this term in 1995, in Harvard Business Review, and much of his work since has been related to refining and applying the concept. It has since become part of the vocabulary, although he was personally uncomfortable with how ubiquitous and misused the term became. He intended it to refer to a smaller niche in the market, not every disruption or every market success.

The way he described it, a smaller, insignificant looking startup would go up against an industry giant. The big guy might even look down with superiority, as though the little guy wasn’t worth his attention. But, then, the new little guy’s innovation catches on and takes over, and the giant company falls Goliath-style.

One of the most cited examples is Netflix, coming on the scene when Blockbuster was the market controller with no apparent sign of yielding. Now Blockbuster is gone and Netflix is a large part of the new streaming industry.

Another example was Intel, which moved toward producing chips for personal computers, rather than focusing on larger computers, or mainframes. (Do young people even know what those were?)

The professor had a way of looking at things—and explaining them—that hadn’t been thought of by others. He’s the author of several books, and an institute for studying and spreading the ideas—which we can be grateful for.

One non-management book he wrote was a self-help book called How Will You Measure Your Life? And he did an inspirational Tedx talk on that subject as well. At the end of that, he concluded that, when he meets with God at the end of his life, they’ll be looking together at how he used the characteristics God gave him to bless the lives of others—touching lives for good.

Clay Christensen giving Tedx talk "How Will You Measure Your Life?"
screenshot from here

Back in October, I heard him quoted on the radio show STA Money Hour. I quoted parts of that particular show, on capitalism, a few months ago. But within that broadcast, where they quoted Professor Christensen, they said this: 

If you look at Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. He said—and it’s Harvard Business—he talks about the prosperity paradox. He writes of poor, developing nations, “It may sound counterintuitive, but enduring prosperity from many nations will not come from fixing poverty. By investing and market creating innovations, investors and entrepreneurs inadvertently engage in nation building. Entrepreneurs and businesses don’t have to set out to improve the world.” He says, “Through their collective efforts of making useful goods and services, an improved world is the outcome.” Why is that so hard to grasp?

As I say here at the Spherical Model, following the principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization will lead to the solutions to world problems better than focusing on solving those problems. So those things first, and then see if there are specific helps for specific people that can be undertaken.

Nitin Nohria, dean of Harvard Business School, says this:

Clayton’s brilliance and kindness were equally evident to everyone he met, and his legacy will be long-lasting. Through his research and teaching, he fundamentally shaped the practice of business and influenced generations of students and scholars.

In 2012 Professor Christensen was named the world’s most influential living management thinker. It has been noted that he wrote about giant companies that fail, while he was both an influential giant and physical giant at 6’8” tall.

His way of thinking came from his religious thought, which is how I came to know of him. He was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which I also am. This informed his thinking, but he was able to express it in ways that people of other beliefs could easily grasp.

Clark Gilbert, who considered him a mentor, said,

People who didn’t believe in God or who weren’t religious found themselves reflecting on spiritual ideas because of the conversations and writings of Clay Christensen. How Will You Measure Your Life influenced so many people. He had this ability to unapologetically and with deep conviction and courage talk about things of faith and of God with people who didn’t think they were religious. He found ways of not only engaging them personally but engaging them intellectually in a way that caused them to start to really, actually think about spiritual matters in a way that they never would have without someone like Clay.

In a piece on religious freedom, in 2014, I quoted and included a short video, provided by People of Faith, which I’d like to repeat here today. He often used stories to explain things, as he does here:

Some time ago I had a conversation with a Marxist economist from China. He was coming to the end of a Fulbright fellowship here in Boston. And I asked him if he had learned anything that was surprising or unexpected. And without any hesitation, he said, “Yea. I had no idea how critical religion is to the functioning of democracy."

“The reason why democracy works,” he said, “is not because the government was designed to oversee what everybody does, but, rather, democracy works because most people, most of the time, voluntarily choose to obey the law. And in your past, most Americans attended a church or synagogue every week, and they were taught there by people who they respected.”

My friend went on to say that Americans follow these rules because they had come to believe that they weren’t just accountable to society; they were accountable to God.

My Chinese friend heightened a vague but nagging concern I’ve harbored inside that, as religion loses its influence over the lives of Americans, what will happen to our democracy? Where are the institutions that are going to teach the next generation of Americans that they too need to voluntarily choose to obey the laws? Because, if you take away religion, you can’t hire enough police.

Battle of the Milk Metaphor

Yesterday Andrew Klavan, on his show, opened with The Big Idea that ceremony, show, and story have an effect on people. He starts with a definition of idolatry, which I thought was valuable in and of itself, so I’m going to lay it out the way he does:

Andrew Klavan, screenshot from here

[Los Angeles] is a town where some soulless Handsome Dan actor, who’s never done a d—n thing for anyone can make $250,000 a week by pretending to be a policeman on TV, while a real policeman not only makes considerably less money; he also gets insulted and criticized by the same idiot journalists who treat the actor like he’s some kind of hero.

Now, in Religion-land, we have a word for this. It’s called idolatry. Idolatry is when you mistake the representation of something for the thing itself. You worship the idol instead of the god the idol represents. Or you respect money more than you respect the work that goes into making money. Or you rank sex as higher than the love it’s meant to express.

There’s a reason, he says, that “God forbids us from making graven images of Him somewhere up near the top of the Ten Commandments.” Then there’s this important point for today’s world:

Breaking idols and keeping track of the true values they’re supposed to represent are necessary tools for staying sane and decent in a corrupt world. And they’re talents that come in especially handy when following politics.

But, then, is there value in stories—portrayals, rather than the actual thing itself? He’s a storyteller, so you’d have to guess the answer in yes. And he cites Shakespeare for support, before making the connection to today’s politics.

There’s no sense pretending that show and drama and symbols don’t affect the human mind—because we are natural idolators. Because our minds perceive truth through metaphor and storytelling, and what Shakespeare called ceremony. We have to pay close attention to the narratives that are being set before us to make sure they either tell us the truth or we learn to detect the truth in them.

Which brings me to the impeachment trial. There is simply no question that the impeachment trial going on right now is a show. It’s all a show. It’s meant to be a show.

No one thinks it’s going to have any real life effect. No one thinks it’s going to end with Trump leaving office. No one expects there’ll even be any new information that comes out of it. It’s meant to communicate messages to you, political messages designed to affect your mind and your vote in the 2020 election.

The insights we need to bring to bear on this spectacle are not legal insights, or really even political insights; they’re critical insights, the insights of an art critic, who can see what the performers are trying to communicate and cut through that to something resembling the truth.

He plays a news teaser about the impeachment trial—the drama, the import! It’s pretty over-the-top, and clearly a show.

Then Klavan points out that Adam Schiff is, in his opinion, a rather talented storyteller. He is portraying a message—that the president cannot be trusted, because of the corrupt bribery and collusion he has engaged in. Except, that, of course, the actual articles of impeachment accuse the president of no broken laws whatsoever, but you must ignore that and just listen to the story he’s telling.

Adam Schiff meme from here

A while back I watched a body language interpretation of Schiff. She found that he’s a pretty  comfortable liar: “He enjoys the deception of what he does.” It’s sadistic, and he uses sarcasm as a cover.

It is all for effect; truth has nothing to do with what he’s doing. This is his show. And reports of him talking yesterday in the opening to the Senate hearings seem to reveal that being on stage—putting on the show—is being in his element.

So, as Klavan says, we need to have “the critical insights of an art critic, who can see what the performers are trying to communicate and cut through that to something resembling the truth.”

That’s a challenge. I have some skill in literary analysis; I was an English major. And I know that, when I read a piece of literature, I often see different things than what others see. I have a pretty simple method I take students through to get at what the author is trying to say. And once you’ve done that, you can decide whether that was a point worth making—whether it’s “true” in the larger sense that fiction can be even when the people and their lives are imaginary.

Schiff is telling a story that is not only fiction; it is untrue.

Klavan included metaphor in his discussion, so I’m going to look at one today, and further it to make it actually apply. This is something I saw posted on Facebook. I haven’t interacted with the writer since the Kavanaugh hearings at which time she relentlessly insisted Kavanaugh ought to want to be investigated. She totally lost me when she claimed her husband (a decent family man with a record cleaner even than Kavanaugh’s) thought he himself should want to be investigated, not to clear his name, but in case there was a case or two of attempted rape he had forgotten about from his youth.

I have nothing to discuss with such a person. But, for some reason, yesterday Facebook’s all-knowing algorithm thought I would relate to this post. I could have just scrolled past; in fact I did. But I am including it here so we can look at how the opposition sees this show (without identifying the writer, because I don’t want to further embarrass her by name). I’m calling this the Battle of the Milk metaphor:

Ok guys. I’ve got 4 kids.

Awhile back I was making them breakfast shakes. They asked what kind of milk I used. I said regular. (We were out of coconut almond milk.) 3 out of 4 (bless that baby😇) didn’t believe me. They were sure they tasted coconut, and they were ready to fight me on it.

At this point, do I:

A. Open the fridge to show them we only have regular milk?

2. Tell them to call their dad who saw me making them so he could vouch for me?

Or D. Refuse to show proof and then pit them against each other in an all out battle over milk?

C’mon guys! You OPEN THE FRIDGE. When you’re telling the truth and you have nothing to hide, and you can unite your family behind truth, you. open. the. fridge.

The Senate trial is underway, and nearly 3 out of 4 Americans want to hear from firsthand witnesses. Why wouldn’t the White House and Senate together want to honor that desire, unite the country behind truth, and allow witnesses to testify?

I think it’s because there’s coconut almond milk in the fridge. #openthefridge #Americaneedsamom #mom4president

No child was harmed in the making of this smoothie illustration.

She got a number of reposts, thumbs up, and congratulations for this, um, brilliant metaphor. Let me just say something about metaphors: they all break down at some point; otherwise they’d be the actual thing, rather than a metaphor for the thing. But when you’re using a metaphor, it ought to be applicable to the actual situation. Otherwise, don’t try this at home. (Or online.)

I’m assuming the mis-numbering (A, 2., D) is intended for humor, so let that go. We’ll just go over the flaw in the Battle of the Milk metaphor for the Senate impeachment hearings.

What do you do? “You. Open. The. Fridge.” So, in the impeachment story, that means revealing the transcript of the infamous phonecall on the very day of the accusation. Trump opened the fridge.

“When you’re telling the truth and you have nothing to hide, and you can unite” everyone when they see they truth, you show it to them. End of subject. Argument over.

Except…  we’re dealing with Democrats. Dems with Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is apparently a real malady.

What do the Dem kids do instead of admitting the argument is settled? Here’s my version of the rest of the Battle metaphor:

“Well, I heard Johnny say he thought there was a definite coconut, or possibly almond, taste in the smoothie.”

“And I heard Suzie say that she heard an unnamed source say he or she had heard Johnny say there was a definite coconut and/or almond taste in the smoothie.”

“And now that we’ve had others point out that they tasted that hint of coconut, or possibly almond, we believe there is indeed a taste of coconut almond in the smoothie.”

“And, you know, sometimes hearsay is better than actual evidence.”

“So you, Mom, have to prove not only that you never put coconut almond milk in the smoothie—even though we know you did, because you’re a liar, liar pants-on-fire kind of mom—you have to prove that you never intended to ever put coconut almond milk in any smoothie, because if you did, then we know you put coconut almond milk in this one.”

“It’s not good enough that you show us there’s only regular milk in the fridge now. You might have used up the last of the coconut almond milk in this very smoothie—which popular opinion of those-not-around-when-you-made-it shows has a taste of coconut, or possibly almond.”

“Show us the garbage to prove there’s no evidence of coconut almond milk being recently used.”

“And show us exactly when the last coconut almond container was placed in the garbage. We need a record.”

“And, even then, how do we know you didn’t put it in the neighbor’s garbage to hide the evidence from us? Huh? Answer that!”

“Also, you have to show us your grocery receipts for the past six months. Because, if you don’t, that’s a sign that you’re hiding something.”

“No, you can’t have Dad tell us what he saw, just because he watched you making the smoothie; he’s in collusion with you. He has condoned having coconut almond milk in this house in the past, so he can’t be trusted. The only witnesses that can be allowed are those of us who either tasted what we think is coconut or almond in the smoothie, or those who have heard others say they may have tasted coconut and/or almond in the smoothie, or those who can testify that they’ve ever talked with you about the possible intention of using coconut almond milk in our smoothie.”

“Because, as we all know, and we’ve said above, hearsay can be better than actual witnesses.”

“This is the worst thing a mom has ever done! No mom should be allowed to use coconut almond milk in a child’s smoothie. And claiming that regular milk was used is only evidence of hiding the use of coconut almond milk in the smoothie.”

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Because these are crazy children who are unaware of truth, unaware of evidence, immune to accepting truth or evidence, and are completely unreasonable. Put them down for a nap!

Unfortunately, these ridiculous children are bent on removing Mom from her rightful position. They’re staging a coup. It’s about power. And, while she knows her position (and her probably valid reasons for considering coconut almond milk a valid choice for a smoothie), their relentless, loud uprising is getting in the way of the family’s actual business—of making family life civilized and prosperous for harmonious growth for all.

I’m assuming you can follow the metaphor to the actual situation now. And, even without an actual family of coconut-almond-milk-hating children, the story helps you see the truth.

Imagine This and That

In my online feed earlier this week, someone had posted a cartoon illustration of The Beatles’ “Imagine.” I won’t argue the musical value of the iconic Beatles. But I do take issue with looking to them for civilization wisdom.

The cartoon illustrations, by Pablo Stanley, are charming, cute, and feel-good. But they portray a lie—because that’s what the song is.

from Pablo Stanley's illustration of "Imagine"
screenshot from here

Here are the words that are illustrated:

Imagine there’s no heaven

It’s easy if you try

No hell below us,

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the people

Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries

It isn’t hard to do.

Nothing to kill or die for.

And no religion too.

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace.

Yoo hoo ooh ooh ooh

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one.

I hope some day you’ll join us.

And the world will be one.

What does life look like without heaven? Or without hell? Only the here and now?

It’s a philosophical and religious question. If we have no conception of right and wrong—or whether it matters whether you do right or wrong—what matters? Does it matter what you do? How you affect others? Whether you accomplish anything or treat others fairly? Can you even conceive of anything beyond satisfying your current desires?

There’s a picture of an angel realizing it isn’t an angel, or even a representative of good, since there’s no arbiter of “good,” and there’s a devil realizing it isn’t a devil, or even a representative of evil, since there’s no judgment to identify anything as bad, or even worse than anything else.

In the depiction, the devil offers up a burning heart, which cools in the hands of the erstwhile angel, who, at the point of “living for today,” kisses the devil. Without any identification of good and evil, there’s only love.

Is that what there would be? Why? Why would we even want love, if we can’t identify love as good, or better than any other feeling or attitude? It’s a pretty huge leap of logic to claim that, if we threw out all conceptions of good and bad, we would randomly all happen upon ultimate good.

Humans naturally seek for meaning. And we can’t help but identify what we see as good, better, best, or bad, worse, worst. We can’t function if we don’t value doing one thing more than doing another. If you missed Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, now would be a good time to take a break and read that. Also, go pick up Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life.

Jordan Peterson often talks about doing what gives life meaning. There’s a video from last February that came up for me on YouTube yesterday, “Jordan Peterson on Masculinity, Meaning, God And Fatherhood (with Gadi Taub),” in which he spoke those truths again. Here’s a bit from that:

Jordan Peterson (right) with Gadi Taub
screenshot from here

What I’m trying to suggest to people is that the pathway to meaning—meaning is the antidote to suffering, as far as I can tell. The question is, where is meaning to be found? And my sense is that it’s to be found in responsibility

The next section is about archetypes, and he talks about what the devil is:

Let’s think about the great figure of evil, the figure of Satan. Well, what is that? Well, it’s cultural; it’s a cultural construct. It’s something that has its autonomous existence in some sense, as a meme—to use Dawkins’ terms—that’s extended over thousands and thousands of years. It’s a personality that occupies a transpersonal space. And this is independent of your religious beliefs. It’s something you interact with, whether you’re a believer or not.

People naturally believe in the personification of evil, I think he’s saying, because people experience evil and there has to be a way to conceptualize that.

What the song is saying, then, is, “Imagine there’s no evil.” OK. But if you do, and then you’re hit with it—well, that’s what causes PTSD—facing a malevolence that you weren’t prepared for and have a hard time recovering from. Elsewhere Dr. Peterson has said (and I've mentioned before) that the best known therapy for PTSD is understanding good and evil—religiously speaking: 

If you have PTSD, it’s because you’ve been touched by malevolence in one way or another. You need to reorganize your thinking along lines that are fundamentally religious. You need to start seeing the world as a battleground between good and evil—which is what it is, in the most real sense.

Maybe the song means to imagine a world where there is no evil. OK. I can do that. That’s heaven. But the song also says not to allow yourself to imagine heaven.

In other words, the song is not helping you imagine a better world. It is making a not-so-hidden claim that religion is to blame for evil in the world. If people stopped having religious beliefs, they’d stop hating one another—even though it is religious beliefs that change humans from hating one another to having a reason to consider even your enemies as human so there is a chance of finding common ground on which to build peace between you.

from Pablo Stanley's illustration of "Imagine,"
screenshot from here

The next section of the song in the cartoon talks about countries. The claim is that because countries exist, people are willing to kill for them and die for them. If we only got rid of countries, we’d have no killing. Is that true?

What is the purpose of a country? It’s a group of people, larger than a tribe, larger than a local entity, that live together under a form of government. In our country, that’s a form of government our ancestors set up in a way that would give us control over the government, rather than the government ruling over us. Not all countries have governments set up that way. Still, governments have a purpose, which they may or may not do well.

There’s a purpose in government: to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its people.

If there were no government, each individual—or each family, possibly—would spend their time defending their own life, liberty, and property. They would either subsist so that no one would want their stuff or care about them, or they would have to protect themselves from someone trying to take from them or use them. Government at its basic level allows us to thrive at pursuing our happiness, rather than spend our energies defending ourselves from the thieves, murderers, and enslavers.

What’s the quickest way to peace? Surrender.

But if you’re surrendering your life, liberty, or property, is peace under those circumstances really the outcome you want?

Smiley faces don’t really replace reality. Here’s what we know, here at the Spherical Model will lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization:

Freedom requires government limited to its proper role of protecting life, liberty, and property. Anything beyond that will cause harm—usually more of the very harm the overreach claims to be ameliorating. Government must be limited to protecting our God-given rights.

Prosperity comes from free markets—with the addition of philanthropy to deal with the problems of those truly unable to provide for themselves. Monopolies are not a free market. Cronyism is not a free market. Government subsidizing its chosen winners and punishing its chosen losers is not a free market. The freer the market, the more prosperous the entire population.

Civilization requires a religious people. As we say at the Spherical Model,

Not all religious societies are civilized (according to my definition), but every civilized society is a religious society. This absolutely does not mean state-sponsored religion or lack of religious freedom; in fact, the opposite is true. Freedom of religion is essential, and the flourishing of religion in general must be encouraged.

Civilization also requires supporting the family as the basic unit of society. Whatever threatens the family threatens civilization. Preserving and protecting the family is paramount in laws and social expectations.

So, about the song. Those of us who promote freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and act in ways that will lead us away from tyranny, poverty, and savagery—are better dreamers of peace than those who lie about blaming all religious believers and all freedom-seeking nations for the lack of peace in our world.

We want peace. And we have a way to get there.

But since we live in a world in which people actually believe different things, hating religion and freedom will not get us the tolerance we would like to see in our world. With all due respect to The Beatles for their music, they're not my source for civilization. And with respect to that artist, whose work I would like if he were portraying truth, I'm just not with you on this one.

In a world where we face actual good and evil, you need to think deeper than a smiley cartoon.