Hi again john,
You, and some others, and apparently the writer of this Atlantic piece, seem to define compromise as weakness. If that's the case, then you're likely going to feel better served under a dictatorship or monarchy form of government. However, you'll only be served under such a form of governance, so long as the dictator or monarchy currently holding the position are in agreement with you in 'how the government should be run'. Just as we see in our form of governance, pretty much the only people who are ever happy and satisfied, are those who see the government running in the way they want the government to run. Unfortunately, we're only human beings and part of the frailty in such a creature is that in our thinking and understanding of things we're all different to some degree with our fellow man. Now, yes, sometime we can get a small group together of like minded people on a particular subject, but we've never been able to amass a group totaling in the hundreds of millions to be in such agreement.
Take spiritual matters, which will drive many of our worldview matters. I believe in God. I'm a born again believer in the one true and living God who has revealed Himself to all of mankind through His Scriptures and His Son. I firmly and steadfastly believe that the creation came about in the literal and simple understanding of the manner and time that God's word tells me that it did. I absolutely agree that we are all sinners and that also has an effect on how each one of us sees the world and how we would like to see it governed.
But listen, I fully understand, also from the Scriptures, that we ain't all gonna see things the same. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans in the very opening how wicked mankind is going to get. He says we're going to be lovers of ourselves. That kind of attitude naturally leads to one thinking that they're way is the right way. He says that we're going to be greedy and idolaters. I also fully appreciate and understand that what he's telling me, as a believer in this world, that I'm going to have to come to terms with living with such people. That I'm going to have to understand that most people ain't like me. But, I also understand that God asks me, as best to my ability, that I live in peace and harmony, full of forgiveness and mercy and compassion for them.
So, as I see things, President Obama wasn't weak. I think I have a fairly good understanding of how our system of government runs. With that understanding I also understand that we don't get exactly what we individually think is the best way to run the world. President Bush wasn't weak and neither was President Clinton or President Carter. They were all men who took on the mantle of President of the United States and to the best of their abilities they worked to steer the ship of state. Some did a better job than others, but for the most part, they all did what their worldview told them was the best way to do things. However, I also realize that we have a reasonably representative government and that we could put the wisest and most powerful man that we know in the place of president and because of all the various intentions and worldviews and desires to see various things done within the government, he isn't likely going to get everything he wants either. Our government just wasn't set up to operate in that manner. Now, some governments were, but not ours.
Our government was established that laws and regulations and such be addressed by a body of people that now runs 535 strong. So, one needs to understand that a president doesn't have to be weak to not get his way. One also needs to learn that the position of the president isn't the law making body of our government. He's just a guy that signs off on things. If we really want to make changes to the direction of our nation, then we have to get into the legislative body. We need to work to elect people in the legislative body that agree with us and that's a fairly yuge task. I mean, let's face it, you've got another 150 million people that may be voting against you because they want some other person to represent them that sees things more in line with how they see things.
Our government was set up so that the body of people comprised in the legislative branch would debate and amend and discuss and haggle over all the various and sundry bills that are introduced each year, hopefully with each representative representing what the 'majority' of the people in his state or district seem to want. That at some point in time the bill is considered finished and complete so long as any changes to be made and it's voted on. It either passes or fails. If it passes, it goes to the desk of the president and is assumed to be the will of the people. Is it going to be your personal and particular will and desire. Maybe, maybe not.
Hundreds of bills go through this process each year and for the most part with little noise or fanfare. However, certain bills address issues for which we all have pretty deeply set opinions and desires. Bills that address issues that are very, very important to all of us, such as health insurance. Currently, President Trump has been unable to find support for funding and building a wall that he says will protect us from certain things. Because he can't drum up the support through the regular legislative process, then he has now chosen to use the budget as a tool. A means to an end we would say. This is all happening because a man who holds a minority position on an issue wants to bully his minority position into law over the desires of the majority opinion. That's always going to be a problem in our form of governance. Further, the man, in this case, ia a particularly mean spirited fellow and doesn't understand any of the process of 'how to win friends and influence people', and so his work is even more difficult and raises more uproar. Many of us, myself included, feel like we're being bullied into doing something for which we don't share the president's understanding.
I'm confident that no amount of money spent on a wall, will have even the slightest effect on the drug trade. Yet, our president wants to continue to drum up support for his wall by telling us that it will. There are border experts that can show us how drugs cross our borders and it ain't on the back of some poor Mexican walking days across the border. He tells us that it will cut down on murders and rapes by illegal immigrants, but has yet shown that any illegal immigrant that has committed such a crime is here because he walked across the border at some unprotected place where a barrier deterrent of some sort would have kept him out of the country. The people of our nation seem to have this picture that all illegal immigrants got here by walking across the plains and hard scrabble land that comprises most of the southern border. There is actually quite a bit of evidence that that isn't the case. That it isn't even a particularly large part in how we come to find illegal immigrants on our soil.
So, for me, if you want any support for this gargantuan wall, then you're going to have to dig up a thousand cases where an illegal immigrant committed a murder or rape in our country and he's here because he walked across the prairie from Mexico. I'm not going to consider that an illegal immigrant committed such a crime, but he came into our country through one of our regularly manned checkpoints. Why? Because the wall wouldn't have, and won't be, effective in stopping that person from what they did.
Further, I fully and firmly believe that, if we can prove any of these scenarios are a real problem, that there are cheaper and just as effective, if not possibly more effective ways to reach the intended goal.
So, that's what I believe. You obviously believe differently. Our system of governance was established that between those two positions, the government has to hammer out legislation to address the problem if it is determined that a problem does exist.
President Trump started howling about this wall during his campaign and it honestly just seems like some idea he came up with in some nightmare in the middle of the night. There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that can confirm it will do what it's intended to do or that it's even the best way to do what we desire to do. He hasn't really allowed any debate over whether or not a wall or some sort of electronic surveillance is the best possible way to handle this problem. During his campaign stump he threw out some cost numbers, but they've all been pretty soundly rebuked as being anywhere near correct. So, this great plan of his seems to be like a lot of his other great plans. Not particularly well thought out. Remember when he was going to be the 'king of Casinos'? Remember his 'Trump University gig'? How about his 'Trump steaks'? Trump has been successful at getting paid to put his name on a few buildings and running a real estate rental 'empire' and not really much else, although God knows he's tried and tried and tried. Some of his schemes have landed him in bankruptcy court. When's the last President of the United States ever filed for bankruptcy? Isn't that some indication that he really isn't as smart as he wants you and I to believe?
He's gained great popularity by being some sort of a showman on television and sadly we are now a nation enamored of TV and movie personalities to the point that we make them little gods in our lives. But deep down in the core of the man who lays his head down at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., he is a mean spirited bully. A man who has always been and lived as a filthy rich person, I mean really, who outfits their entire home in real gold fixtures and paint? Who tries to keep his hair the color of gold. The man is so enamored with money that he really has no time for anything else. Even now, he's using his position to fill up his hotels and resorts. Really? That's what we want out of our president?
Not me.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
