Yet Another Close-Minded Leftist Troll

I was surprised to see that a comment I made to a post at Intellectual Takeout over a year ago has garnered some new replies. The post deals with the fact that most Americans, particularly younger Americans, have “almost entirely forgotten their history.” As George Santayana said, “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” Or as Robert Heinlein once wrote, “Those who do not study history have no past...and no future.”

In America, we celebrate democracy and are justifiably proud that this nation was founded on the idea that the people should rule.

That’s why it is so important that Americans be informed about their government. They are partakers in it. In fact, they control it.

Under tyrannical systems, it matters little if the people are informed about political life. Autocrats make decisions for the people whether they like it or not. But in our republic, we rely on the informed decision-making of citizens to judge policies and the leaders who will implement them.

Unfortunately, we are not very well-informed.

According to a recently released survey, Americans are woefully uneducated about the most basic facts of our history, to the point where most couldn’t even pass a basic citizenship test.

Therein lies the problem. It isn’t just a lack of understanding of our history that’s a problem, but the related ignorance of our laws and of the Constitution that also pervert and twist American’s perception of what’s legal and what’s not. This was amply displayed by a series of exchanges in the comments of that year-old post, where one part, a self-described “70-something female that grew up in Virginia and I know our history.” This same female then went on to prove she doesn’t understand our laws or our constitution, or worse, that she does and wants to see both changed beyond recognition in order to fit her view of what should and should not be legal. Heaven help us if she ever gets her way.

Here are her comments and some responses to her comments:

Her: Liberals started this country.

Him: Yes, classic liberals who believed in the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, that government that ruled least ruled best, and so on. "Liberal" doesn't mean what it used to and is in fact the antithesis of its original meaning. Liberals today are anything but liberal in their beliefs, the term having been suborned by the regressive Progressives.

Her: And you are expert on what liberals believe since you are one?? LOL. From my view most conservatives don't really believe in liberty. They are the real regressives. I am a 70 something female that grew up in Virginia and I know our history. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves from the perversions of the right now.

Him: As compared to the Left doing everything it can to strip Americans of their rights while telling us to "trust" them because they know better what the people need than the people themselves? That's what has the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves, the very thing they fought against over 200 years ago.

Her: What rights are the Left trying to strip from you? Seriously? Please give specific answers, What I think is old guys are seeing the country getting more diverse and browner along with women becoming more powerful and it scares them. You do realize that when this country was formed there were no restrictions on immigration. Funny, the right wants gun rights with no restrictions yes wants to limit immigration. Why does the right think they define what being liberal is?

Him: Let's see:

Freedom of Speech is a big one. All one has to do is look what is happening on college campuses which has spilled out into society. You can only speak if you agree with us, otherwise you will be silenced, made an un-person. Owners and staff of social media do that day in and day out. Only viewpoints of those they agree with will be seen. Those with opposing viewpoints (most often conservative viewpoints) are blocked, taken down, removed or accounts are suspended because they disagree with the Leftist narrative.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms is another one. Strip law-abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves against miscreants and tyrants (these days often the same people). Certainly the government is incapable of protecting the citizens. And who protects us against the government? You?

How about the Rule of Law in general? The Left consistently wants laws that stand in their way to be re-interpreted to greatly weaken them or eliminate them entirely. An example: immigration law. It seems these days that illegal immigrants have more rights than citizens. Leftist judges block implementation of long standing laws or executive orders, often without stating what law or constitutional article/amendment is being violated.

If need be I can go on and on (after I get out of work). But those are the top three that come to mind. There are plenty of others.

Her: You need to read the Heller decision. Gun ownership is not unlimited.

Him: But states/cities legislating gun control laws that make it darned near impossible to buy or own a gun go too far. Then again, those states tend to have very high rates of violence and property crimes and it seems the Powers That Be want to keep it that way by making sure citizens will be incapable of defending themselves. Only the criminals seem to be allowed to own/carry guns there.

Heller has been studiously ignored by Washington DC, making law abiding potential gun owners jump through all kinds of hoops just as a means of denying them the right to own a weapon, something that Heller was supposed to eliminate. Heller also stated that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not a collective right.

McDonald was supposed to stop the abuses by the city of Chicago in regards to gun ownership by law abiding citizens. That city has also ignored the ruling by dragging its feet when it comes to following the SCOTUS decision.

Her: The current administration is ignoring the Rule of Law and our Constitution. Impeachment is constitutional. It is not a hoax or witch hunt. The left is not trying to strip you of the right to own guns. They just want better gun controls and gun control enforcement. I own a gun. Many liberals do. You seem to think if anyone on the left disagrees with you, exercises their freedom of speech, it is somehow an attack on your freedom of speech. It is not. Seems the right is guilty of that more so. The right is very quick to start name calling and being demeaning in my experience. I agree that younger Americans are not being taught history as well as I was. What is really astounding is the number of older Americans that do not really know the history of this country, or worse, twist it. I am very grateful my two sons have studied not only our history but world history. I promise you they can easily pass a citizenship test, as can I.

Him: Ignoring the rule of law? OK, you made the accusation, now provide proof. (Sorry, links to TPM, HuffPo, or CNN don't count.)

Or is this just your opinion masquerading as fact because you want it to be so?

Her: Link here This administration doesn't follow our asylum law. Asylum seekers can be IN THE COUNTRY BEFORE they ask for asylum.

Second example, calling the impeachment hearings a hoax. Impeachment is constitutional.

Third obstruction of justice by intimidation of witnesses and blocking witnesses testimony

For proof of these simply listen to Trump.

Him: To address your second point first, since when is opining about a law unlawful? Maybe on your world, but not mine. Calling the impeachment a hoax may indeed be the truth, but that doesn't mean it's breaking any law. If it is, then cite chapter and verse.

There is a thing such as executive privilege that every President can exercise. Until a court rules that the privilege doesn't exist in specific matters, it does exist. If anyone was intimidating witnesses it was Schiff, making all kinds of threats against potential witnesses, holding closed door interviews which the inquiry process does not authorize as all testimony is supposed to be public. (Star Chamber, anyone?)

Presidents can issue executive orders that suspend existing laws. Obama did that when he created DACA out of thin air, something that violated existing immigration law. By your lights, Obama should have been impeached for that bit of legal legerdemain.

Think executive orders can't overturn established law? Think again. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War by executive order.

That Trump modified the asylum process temporarily by requiring asylum seekers to apply for asylum from outside the US rather than within its borders is minor by comparison. With the borders having been leaking like a sieve and activist judges blocking implementation of existing immigration laws, the President was well within his power to modify the asylum process temporarily. It did not ban anyone from seeking asylum, but changed the process on a temporary basis.

Her: When the one opining is President and should be aware it is constitutional and then proceeds to obstruct justice by demanding non compliance with lawful subpoenas. He took an oath "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This violates his oath of office.

Him: Your first sentence in no way represents what you wrote earlier.

You stated, and I quote "...calling the impeachment hearings a hoax." It doesn't matter that impeachment is constitutional. Calling the present impeachment efforts a hoax, meaning its only purpose is to mollify those who didn't like the fact that Felonia Milhouse van Pantsuit is not in the White House, is not against the law, is not unconstitutional. I know you desperately want it to be.

A president stating his opinion about anything is legal, is constitutional. It's covered under that whole First Amendment thingy. It doesn't matter who is opining about the impeachment circus. They have every right to do so. You do. The President does. I do. Everyone does. That you don't like it is significant of nothing and doesn't change the fact that the President has every right to declare the whole thing "a hoax".

There has not as yet been a response nor do I expect there will be other than some kind of clueless off-topic comment or irrelevant comparison or appeal to authority. She tries to make it all about the constitutionality of the impeachment process while at the same time trying to twist the meaning of the Constitution to agree with her ideology, something that does not reflect reality.