Trump Girl

 

This is a litany posted by a young Caucasian female who styles herself a “Trump Girl,” although, in her defense, I doubt she’s a really a trophy wife or serial gold digger wanna be. I thought since all too frequently it’s impossible to get a rational answer from Trump supporters, this one has at least laid out her “reasons” for being one. I place the word reasons in quotes because the word reason implies rationality, which seems to be missing from the list as she intends it. This might take a while so be patient

 

All of you who would say “I can't believe you would vote for Trump." Well folks listen up! I'm not just voting for him. 

“I'm voting for the first and second Amendment.  I'm voting for the next supreme court justice.  I'm voting for the electoral college, and the Republic we live in.”

Ok, here goes: the first and second amendments are not and never have been under threat. No one has proposed repealing them. Let’s consider Amendment 2 first.

        As a historian, familiar with the writers and writing of the Constitution, specially Hamilton, I say without fear of equivocation that the words “a well-regulated militia…etc.” were specifically included because of dissatisfaction with the state of preparedness of the sole source of armed men for the Revolutionary War. Period. Hamilton expounded at length on the subject which, as Washington’s chief of Staff, he had witnessed first-hand. His concern was that should war reoccur (as it would in 1812) that those who were to fight would be better trained and prepared. To this end the second amendment was written to encourage military preparedness. 

       After the war, the Continental Army was quickly given land certificates and disbanded in a reflection of the republican distrust of standing armies. State militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. It wasn’t until 1796 (20 years after the beginning of the Revolution) that the regular Army was created and that existed on paper only, relying on volunteer militia to fight in time of need. That’s why there is a second amendment – because all that ensues follows those “well-regulated militia” words. We have a well-regulated militia – It’s both the US Army and the National Guard. While Madison crafted much of the Bill of Rights, #2 was, principally, Hamilton’s baby.

         Now that we have the meaning and the reason for the verbiage, understand that no one has asserted that guns are to be confiscated or legitimate hunters should be disadvantaged. No one. It is true, however, that even if Trump said the Continental Army “seized the airports” (yes, he did, He said that!)  that no one foresaw high fire 30 round clip automatic weapons either. DDT was banned because it is hazardous to both humans and animals. Republican icon Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapons ban. Donald Trump does not, not because he hunts (he doesn’t; he never has) but because the NRA shovels a veritable shit load of money to Republican candidates. What do the vast bulk of Americans support? Reasonable background checks so someone like a James Holmes (for example) can’t stockpile automatic weapons and ammo, stroll into a movie house, and commence the slaughter.

        More than 75% of NRA members, most of whom are hunters, support rigorous background checks, yet Trump and McConnell; have promised now disgraced NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre to stall any such proposals. Meanwhile a 17- year-old stone killer’s mommy drives him, across state lines so he can use his automatic weapon to commit murder. And you think this is what Madison and Hamilton had in mind?

        First Amendment. There is a massive block in the brain of those on the far right where this amendment is concerned. It results from their inability to separate the Constitution from the reactions of others to hate speech. No one has ever been sued in Federal court over free speech for the specific use of hate speech. The standard has been sort of the “Yelling Fire in a crowded theater” response.

        Sadly, people like the young woman in question have been conditioned by persons with other agendas to believe that a corporate or business response to an individual’s use of speech generally considered offensive either in and of itself or in a specific context, somehow abridges the individual’s right to free speech. It does not. It is simply business: You work for me.  You use disrespectful speech which offends potential customers. I fire you. First amendment has nothing to do with it; I fired you because you’re an insensitive and offensive asshole whose decision to use the offensive language led to my decision to fire you. Period. You have the right to say whatever evil epithets you care to, but I have the right to fire you if, as my employee, you choose to do it in my business. It simply isn’t a legal issue; it’s a judgement issue and you have none.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        The closest thing we have ever seen with regard to government abridgement of free speech is restrictions during war time. That is, up until Donald Trump actually proposed censuring Face Book, and banning Tik Tok because they allowed free speech and much of it was detrimental to him. Pointing out the truth when the president lies (and boy, does he lie!) is a basic right. It is what separates us from China and Russia, but, to this president, criticism of his falsehoods is a violation of his free-speech rights. This position reverses the purpose of the First Amendment, turning an individual right of freedom of expression into the right of the state to silence its critics.  So, a vote for free speech would not be consistent with a vote for Trump.

        As for the next Supreme Court Judge:  Be careful what you wish for. It’s hard to believe any female would be anxious to vote for a President who might try to appoint another Brett  Kavanaugh. Rather more probable is that, like Chief Justice John Roberts, the honor might make the selectee realize just how much more important the job is than politics. Roberts, a supposed conservative, has often voted his conscience (a concept with which several members of Trump’s own family allege he, himself, is unfamiliar.) This has led to Chief Justice Roberts  being the swing vote in several decisions which have gone against standard conservative dogma. Actually, if the next USSC justice is a person of true character and not a partisan apparatchik (def: “a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization such as a political party) then the Republic will be OK.

        As for the Electoral College, you can vote all you want, and however you wish, but here’s a flash; it just doesn’t matter. The biggest issue with the Electoral College is that about 90% of Americans don’t have a real understanding of why it exists or how it functions. I do, but I don’t propose to do a monograph on the subject. But believe me, your individual vote for the Presidential candidate of your choice is irrelevant to its existence. It is odd that Trump hated it right up until he was elected President because of it, in 2016, huh?

 

I'm voting for the Police, and law and order.  I'm voting for the military, and the veterans who fought for and died for this Country. 

        I am too, I’d just like it (policing) done better and more even handedly. My source on why policing needs to be done better isn’t some Facebook drivel, much of which is reprehensible and goes something like this: “Well, the Black guy probably did something he deserved to die for.”  Sadly, a larger percentage of the general population (racists) feels that way more than in most police departments. 

    My heroine, Val Demings, Congresswoman and former Orlando Chief of Police, has stated it about as well as anyone  “My fellow brothers and sisters in blue, what the hell are you doing?” (she demanded in a Washington Post op-ed in late May, four days after George Floyd’s death.)  While she has been criticized for generally siding with officers in many instances, she has also spoken out on the issue I believe to be most important and most overlooked by Republican zealots. I’ll try to paraphrase and sum this up succinctly.

          Far too many on the Right simply believe that anything police do is appropriate. The example I’m going to use is a parallel, but relevant. Generally, if a cop is involved in an alleged brutality incident, three facts are salient:

 1) The officer is almost certainly a union member whose dues pay for immediate representation from an individual whose job is to “get the officer off” vice censured.

2) the internal investigation will be handled by fellow members of the force and probably of the union.

 3) And most significantly, the doctrine of “implied immunity” based upon decades of court decisions automatically favoring cops who kill or injure as within  their rights and duty, There are stunning examples of even the USSC refusing to hear a lower court case of this nature, and race is a significant role in many of them. 

        Now consider another excessive force example, Senior Chief Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL. Like most police he had the training and the right to use lethal force as necessary. Unfortunately, like some police officers he liked using it. I have a friend, a sheriff’s deputy who uses the term “Badge Heavy” to describe these people. Sadly, almost every force has them, and their peers know who they are. Once hired, they are difficult to get rid of. They exist, and many take up the profession because they are either bullies or, worse in some cases, have been bullied.  Eddie Gallagher was a SEAL and the leader of a SEAL team. He also murdered a 14-year-old girl and posed with her severed head as he smiled for the camera.

        Unlike with the “Blue Wall” of the police, members of the SEAL team, so shaken and devastated by what they had witnessed, reported this action to the chain of command. Rather than cover up or simply reprimand, the Navy legal system charged Senior Chief Gallagher with criminal activity, court martialed him, and finding him guilty only of posing with the severed head, sentenced him to confinement and demotion.

        Four members of his team testified against him and were, in later interviews, devastated by the light punishment for what amounted to murder. The primary reason was that it was not clear if the girl had been part of a hostile group or an innocent bystander and the military jury could not reach unanimity on the murder charge.

     Eddie Gallagher, a disgrace to the uniform and the Navy was later pardoned by Trump, another disgrace. When any organization places persons with an emotional flaw such as the propensity to use violence in positions where they believe they can do so with impunity, we enable the Eddie Gallaghers and the four cops who let George Floyd die while one knelt on his neck.

        Chief Demings has been outspoken in her belief that we need to make it harder to get the job and do more screening of psychological factors of applicants. I would also offer that impartial civilian review boards with teeth might help. As a 26-year Navy Submarine Master Chief Petty Officer, I am embarrassed by the Eddie Gallaghers and those who enable and pardon their ilk.

        As far as the military, I know galaxies more than you on the subject and trust me, the military is fine. Veterans on the other hand, (you know, “losers,” or “failures” like John McCain who made the "error" of being shot down over Vietnam and incarcerated only to be further insulted by Trump for it) owe Trump nothing. This is a man who likened avoiding venereal disease to a veteran’s service in Viet Nam. Yes, he did. Even Fox news verified the claims of Trump’s derogatory remarks with regard to veterans. So, sweet cheeks, a vote for Trump isn’t a vote for vets. No, just no. As for dead veterans, Trump couldn’t be bothered to go to Normandy to honor those buried there. He also had to ask an aide who the opposing sides were! (College grad, doesn’t know who fought in WWII?)

 

I'm voting for the Flag that is always missing from the Democratic background. 

First of all, the “always missing” is, simply put, a lie. This stems not from Trump Girl’s personal observation, but from a fake Facebook meme. Blindly reposting Facebook memes brings to mind another meme featuring an attributed quote from Yoda: “If stupid you are, speak you should not” All Democratic functions one could have possibly seen in recent months featured either flags or graphic designs featuring the stars and stripes/and/or red, white, and blue. Secondarily, as an actual veteran, I never served the flag, I served the nation.

        The flag is a symbol, which in many cases seems to be embraced by those uber patriots who love the image far more than what it actually stands for – Brotherhood of man and equal treatment under law for all her citizens. 

       When confronted with flag waving racists (isn’t it odd how those two things seem to go together?)  I am reminded of a famous, but sometimes misused, quote by Dr. Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." This comment was not, as some believe, about true love of country or patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham and his supporters. The same could well be said of the current President, who says he loves America, but admires Vladimir Putin while denigrating his own military and its veterans. Or perhaps of the KKK who featured both the Stars and Stripes and their muscular “Christianity” at lynchings.

I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. 

Save your energy, Trump girl. You have that right. It isn’t threatened, but, as I pointed out earlier, others have the right to dislike it and react negatively to it. You confuse a right with the reactions of others to your use of that right in a hurtful or disrespectful manner. Also, as I pointed out above, the only political figure of whom I am aware who has threatened free speech is Donald Trump. Criticism of hate speech is simply anther exercise of free speech.

I’m voting for secure borders. 

This is a difficult question to evaluate. Since your statements are nothing if not simplistic and single layered here’s a statistic for you. Under Bush 43 and Obama both, far more attempted undocumented entrants were returned across the Mexican border. However, that’s not the whole story. Trump locked up children, many forcefully separated from their parents. He did so, citing a false claim, echoed by VP Pence, that ““Ninety percent of the people never show up for their hearing in the months ahead. ... The overwhelming majority, plus-90 percent, don’t show up.”  Syracuse University ran their own program, called TRAC, using information obtained under the freedom of information act. Contrary to the Pence lie, they found: Of 46,743 families, 85.5 percent attended their initial hearing and 81 percent attended all their hearings, according to TRAC. “Most have had only one scheduled hearing,” Long said. For those families with legal representation, the attendance rate was 99.9 percent at the first hearing and 99 percent for all hearings, the TRAC report says. This borders on being the inverse of Pence’s claim. All this without locking children up. Strange, huh?

I’m voting for the right to praise my God without fear. 

        Wow, I have no idea what God you praise, or where you do it, but it certainly isn’t in the USA. Actually, unless you’re a Muslim, Jew, or Hindu, I would find it impossible to believe that anyone at any time has interfered with your right to worship or tried to. Oh, wait that wasn’t really what you meant, now was it? “Fess up. You really meant that you want to not only worship as you see fit, you want to be able to dictate public policy and institutional observances based on your faith. Additionally, you want to be able to project those tenets into education and medicine applicable to all citizens, even though that 1^st Amendment you’re “voting for” bars “establishment of religion.”

        Better yet, the 14^th extends that protection “from” religion to the states: “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This means that I am Constitutionally protected from being legally coerced, forced or prodded into having to follow your specific religious beliefs, just as you are free from mine.

        If there is any violation of the spirit or intent of the document in the area of religious freedom, it is the specious assertion that, as a public officer or business, you are entitled to refuse or abridge service  to non-coreligionists on the basis that doing so indicates your approval of their lifestyle of belief. The belief that, simply as a citizen, one ought to be free to avail themselves of a publicly operated business without a litmus test of values, beliefs, skin color, sexuality or anything else is a basic right. If, for example, you don’t wish to grant a marriage license to a same sex couple, then resign. 

       Of course, Donald Trump, whose own sister claims he has no ethical values, and whose lifestyle has, for years, demonstrated no moral compass, has no issue with pandering to his supporters’ misplaced concept of religious freedom. Don’t kid yourself. He gives not even a single shit about your faith, just your vote.

I’m voting for every unborn soul the Democrats want to murder. 

Let’s start off with the premise that you have a religious point of view which sees abortion as a sin. I will simply say this: this belief, which it is certainly your right to hold, is not Biblical in derivation. Save your energy, I looked it up for you. Of the ten times abortion or murder of the unborn is mentioned in that Book, nine times it is God doing the killing. The other instance is essentially instructions to go to the Priest to get the “herbs” which will induce abortion in the case of rape. Period. Yeah, I know what you’ve been told, but you probably don’t know that it is a recent dogma for Protestants.

         Here’s a history your pastor hasn’t told you. The Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution at its 1971 meeting that supported legislation permitting abortion for reasons nearly as expansive as those the Supreme Court eventually would allow in Roe v. Wade and its companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton.

        In another example, a poll conducted by the Baptist Sunday School Board in 1970 found that 70% of SBC pastors supported abortion to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, 64% supported abortion in cases of fetal deformity, and 71% in cases of rape.

    And finally, after Roe V Wade was promulgated: Nine days after the ruling, Baptist Press—a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention—ran an article with the lead paragraph stating that the decision: “advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice.” The story also says the court was a “strict constructionist” court and not a “liberal” court and observed there “is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion.”

        Abortion became an issue, not because of dogma or scriptural justification but because Republican operatives such as Lee Atwater saw the opportunity to use it as a divisive issue and one which many could easily be swayed by few (i.e., pastors with Republican political convictions). Simply put, you and those who are opposed to abortion on the basis of believing such a position to be scripturally dictated have been duped. That is not to say that, as some including, apparently, you believe that not being rabidly anti-abortion is identical with being “Pro-abortion.” I know of no one I have ever met who is pro-abortion. Most in my circle of friends are pro-choice. A truly Constitutional point of view would hold that abortion is a private matter and leave it there.

 

I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream.  I’m voting for good and against evil.  I'm not just voting for one person; I'm voting for the future of my Country!

        I’m afraid you lost me here. Your earlier statements seem to imply that your version of the American Dream is primarily reserved for Caucasian White Christians, but the document you cite was written by immigrants, about half of whom owned other involuntary immigrants as slaves. I find it hard to believe that even you would want the nation run as it was then. If that were true, we wouldn’t have this conversation since you wouldn’t be able to vote.

        The beauty if the US Constitution is that it is general where appropriate and specific where necessary. The first Amendment is specific in what it prohibits. We adhere to the letter of that, even if your President has publicly stated otherwise on numerous occasions. The Second was more conditional, based on a perceived need at the time (no professional military, a situation long since remedied). I guess what I’m driving at is that simply throwing terms around as Constitutional without truly understanding the document and its historicity is a fool’s errand.

       As far as the “Good vs Evil” …..per his own family and former staff, Trump is either supremely evil or supremely stupid or a bit of both, which may be worse. You are young, you are educable, I hope. Rather than listening indiscriminately and believing only that which aligns with your world view, do the work. Read for content and context, consider memes as what they all too frequently are – propaganda.