Will I Be Held Accountable for Abortions Performed with Taxpayer Money?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the right to life from conception to natural death. Life – particularly human life -- is a gift from God and should be protected by all humans. Yet, many people believe life can be snuffed out for those humans who are inconvenient, imperfect, or unproductive. This includes unborn and newly born babies, disabled people, and aged individuals.

            President Joe Biden is celebrated as being the second Roman Catholic to hold the office of President of the United States, and his religion has been emphasized often during the 2020 presidential election and in the weeks since his inauguration. He claims to be a “devout Catholic,” because he attends mass regularly. Yet, his actions are not those of a follower of Christ – Catholic or otherwise.

            Early in the campaign, Biden’s Catholic religion became a campaign issue when a Catholic priest in South Carolina denied communion to him over his pro-choice abortion views. Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Biden could not be considered to be a Catholic in “good standing” and should not receive communion. He said that abortion is a mortal sin. 

            More recently, Roman Catholic bishops condemned Biden’s executive orders in support of abortion. He repealed the Mexico City Policy that blocks taxpayer money from paying for overseas abortion providers, but Biden chose to reverse it. He has also taken steps to restore Title X funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in the United States and said that he wants to codify Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized killing unborn babies. Here are the statements from the Catholic bishops. 

It is grievous that one of President Biden’s first official acts actively promotes the destruction of human lives in developing nations. This Executive Order is antithetical to reason, violates human dignity, and is incompatible with Catholic teaching. We and our brother bishops strongly oppose this action. We urge the President to use his office for good, prioritizing the most vulnerable, including unborn children.

As the largest non-government health care provider in the world, the Catholic Church stands ready to work with him and his administration to promote global women’s health in a manner that furthers integral human development, safeguarding innate human rights and the dignity of every human life, beginning in the womb. To serve our brothers and sisters with respect, it is imperative that care begin with ensuring that the unborn are free from violence, recognizing every person as a child of God. We hope the new administration will work with us to meet these significant needs. [Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop David J. Malloy, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace]

            Even though Biden refuses to impose his “religious beliefs on other people,” he stands at odds with the rules of his religion. The section of the Catholic Catechism that discusses abortion states: “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.”

            The Mexico City Policy was instituted in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. The name comes from the location where it was announced at a United Nation population conference. Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all repealed the policy, while Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump reinstituted it. It seems that Democrat presidents support the killing of babies, while Republican presidents do not. 

            Romans Catholics are not the only church leaders who condemn abortion. In October 2008, President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defined abortion as a “war on the unborn.” He referenced the well-known commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Matthew 5:21; Mosiah 13:21). In our day, the Lord re-established His laws: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6; emphasis added.) 

            President Nelson continued, “Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong.” He recognized that some situations argue for abortion but do not offer convincing reasons.

Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare.

Some argue for abortion because of fear that a child may have a congenital malformation. Surely the harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy are real, but caution is needed in considering the termination of a pregnancy. Life has great value for all, including those born with disabilities. Furthermore, the outcome may not be as serious as postulated….

To deny life to an individual because of a possible handicap is a very serious matter. Policy consistent with that logic would dictate that those already living with such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. One more step in that tragic train of thought would lead to the conclusion that those who are either infirm or inconvenient should also be eliminated. Such irreverence for life would be totally unthinkable!

            After discussing the various argument for abortion, President Nelson said, “Relatively few abortions are performed for the special circumstances to which I have referred.” So, what are the reasons for most abortions? According to President Nelson, “Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.” So, how do we decrease or stop the huge numbers of unborn babies being killed by their own mothers?

            Many people argue that “a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body.” All of us – male and female – are free to think, free to plan, and free to do whatever we want to do. However, no one is free to choose the consequences of those actions. Most women are free to choose to have sex or not to have sex. Most women are free to practice birth control or not to practice birth control. However, once conception takes place, the “choice has already been made,” according to President Nelson. “She cannot ‘unchoose.’” He continued:

When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person [was] involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life – and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.

As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice – the right choice – not simply for choice as a method….

            President Nelson is not the only Latter-day Saint leader who has counseled against abortion. In April 1885, the First Presidency issued an “Epistle of the First Presidency” that included this statement: “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.” (Quoted by President Nelson.)

            Nearly 100 years later, President Spencer W. Kimball (1895-1985) again set forth the position of the Church regarding abortion. The position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has changed little since this statement was made.

We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.” (Quoted by President Nelson.)

            Current Church policy adds two additional exceptions to the two rare instances listed above (conception due to rape and health of the mother). The two added exceptions are conception due to insist or “when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” It should be noted that “these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion.” Those people who are in a position where they are considering an abortion should counsel “with their local Church leaders and [receive] a confirmation [from God] through earnest prayer.” Abortion (churchofjesuschrist.org)

            The seriousness of abortion for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be severe. “Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.” I suppose that members of the Church of Jesus Christ who are also politicians making policies for their state or nation would fall under some of those conditions. Any politicians that support abortion laws could be said to “encourage” abortion. Certainly, any politicians that vote for abortions to be paid by taxpayer money could be said to “pay for.” Abortion (churchofjesuschrist.org)

            When it comes to federal funds paying for abortion in this nation or across the world, it appears that every taxpayer is guilty of paying for millions of abortions. Our nation paid a heavy price for the sin of slavery with four years of bitter war and 400,000 lost lives. I wonder what we will pay for the sin of killing unborn babies. President Biden refuses to impose his “religious beliefs on other people,” but he has no qualms about forcing all American taxpayers into a position where they must answer to God for the millions, possibly billions, of unborn babies that have been aborted with federal funds.

  

What Keeps the Lord from Giving Me the Knowledge that I Seek?

             I am a little behind in my Come, Follow Me studies and am still studying Doctrine and Covenants 6-9 about receiving revelation. In Section 9, we learn that Oliver Cowdery attempted to translate the Book of Mormon plates by the gift and power of God, but he hesitated and lost the privilege. In another revelation, now known as Section 9, the Lord tells Oliver that he will have other opportunities, but he should continue serving as scribe for Joseph Smith for now.

5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.

6 Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now. (Doctrine and Covenants 9:5-10)

            The verses above are a lesson for every person who wishes to receive revelation from God. He wants us to study the matter for ourselves and decide what we think is right. Then, we ask God if we made the right decision. If we did, we will receive a warm feeling. If not, we will have a stupor of thought.

            We should remember that the Lord reveals information to us according to His own will and timing. We can prepare ourselves for receiving revelation by gaining a righteous desire, asking in faith, obeying the commandments, and then waiting on the Lord. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained why Oliver need to combine study and faith to receive revelation.

The correct relationship between study and faith in the receipt of sacred knowledge is illustrated in Oliver Cowdery’s attempt to translate ancient records. He failed because he “took no thought,” but only asked God. (D&C 9:7.) The Lord told him he should have “stud[ied] it out in [his] mind” and then asked if it was right.  (D&C 9:8.) Only then would the Lord reveal whether the translation was correct or not. And only on receiving that revelation could the text be written, because “you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” (D&C 9:9.) In the acquisition of sacred knowledge, scholarship and reason are not alternatives to revelation. They are a means to an end, and the end is revelation from God” (“Alternate Voices,” Ensign, May 1989, 30).

            Learning to receive personal revelation is a process that must be learned. It often requires effort and struggle on our part before the Lord parts the veil and reveals knowledge to us. Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught that the reason why we should do more than simply ask for answers:

I am convinced that there is no simple formula or technique that would immediately allow you to master the ability to be guided by the voice of the Spirit. Our Father expects you to learn how to obtain that divine help by exercising faith in Him and His Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Were you to receive inspired guidance just for the asking, you would become weak and ever more dependent on Them. They know that essential personal growth will come as you struggle to learn how to be led by the Spirit (“To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” Ensign, Nov. 2009, 6-7).

            We can understand from the statement by Elder Scott that the Lord has reasons for withholding information that we seek. One reason is that He wants us to grow and develop our personal capacity to receive revelation. He wants us to work for what we get. Once we have put in the effort, He will open the heavens for us if it is His will to do so.

Is It Possible to Prevent an Unnecessary Divorce?

            Families, communities, and nations are strengthened by strong, intact families. I studied divorce in my college class this week and learned some facts that may help you. I read a chapter about divorce in a book titled Take Back Your Marriage by William J. Doherty, who is a practicing marriage and family therapist.

            Doherty first explains that there is a difference between “hard” and “soft” reasons for divorce. Hard reasons include serious problems, such as abuse, addictions, and affairs – known as the three “A’s”. He was quick to say that “Nearly any serious personal problem someone brings to a marriage is treatable if that person owns up to the problem, seeks proper help along with the spouse, and dedicates himself or herself to becoming healthy again” (p. 116).

            Having made the above statement about hard reasons for divorce, Doherty concentrated on soft reasons. Doherty and two colleagues gave a “standard checklist of reasons for divorce” to almost 900 divorcing people with minor children. The two reason that were marked by more than half of the people were “growing apart” and “not being able to talk together.” He stated that “most divorces are not based on severe problems that compromise health and well-being, but on more subtle relationship problems that might be more easily repaired” (p. 116).

            Doherty’s first piece of advice for anyone considering divorce is to start “moving in a healthy direction before you call it quits on the marriage.” Doing so “offers two benefits: it gives the marriage the best chance to survive and it helps to avoid the same mistakes in future relationships if our current marriage ends” (pp. 16-17).

            Continuing, Doherty states that there are “two main paths that couples take toward unnecessary divorce for the soft reasons, and you need to know how to avoid those paths and get off them if you find yourself there” (p. 17). The two paths are the “slow way” and the “fast track.” Then he made an interesting statement: “You can bring down almost any good marriage in two years” (p. 117). You can do this by “focusing on what you are not getting out of the relationship and how your partner fails to live up to your expectations” (p. 117).

            The slow way to bring down a marriage is by making small choices that are detrimental to the marriage. By focusing on the spouse’s deficiencies, you can eventually destroy the relationship. Quite often, the spouse is innocent and the same person that you married. The problem is with you. You are more stressed, and your spouse is not emotionally there for you. You see the spouse of your good friend doing a better job at maintaining a marriage. A dangerous reason is that you are attracted to someone outside your marriage.

            The next step has two paths. You can either begin to criticize your spouse and say negative things to him or her, or you can start withdrawing from your marriage. You can either take the second path after failing on the first one, or just start on the second path. The next thing that you will do is change the history of your marriage. Because you see your marriage as failing, you will tell yourself that it was a bad marriage from the beginning because you married the wrong person. Some time along the path, you will make an escape plan.

            Doherty wrote that women initiate two-thirds of all divorces, and second divorces come faster than the first – especially when one does not learn from the mistakes of the first one. He said that there are warning signs, but some couples do not notice them or act to prevent divorce. He listed ten warning signs and said that “If more than three of the following statements describe you, drop everything and make a commitment right now to put off any decision or actions to dissolve your marriage until you get real help” (p. 129).

1. You’re beginning to claim that you and your spouse were really never in love, yet your friends and family say you were crazy about each other when you got married.

2. You say your spouse never pays any attention to you and never makes an effort to spend time with you, yet somehow, you’re busy – with work you brought home, with volunteer meetings, with dinner or a drink with friends, with helping your child with homework – every evening of the week.

3. These days you dwell mostly on your spouse’s faults and failings but if pressed to describe the type of person our spouse is, you would use terms like “fair,” “dependable,” “responsible,” and “kind.”

4. You say your partner can’t be a good spouse but is a good parent. You rule out the possibility that someone who can be a good parent might also be able to learn to be a good spouse.

5. You begin your usual long litany of complaints about your marriage to our mother or a friend, but for the first time the response is “Maybe you’re right to think about divorce,” and you find yourself speechless as well as surprised to feel a little hurt.

6. You say you’re determined to be “done with it” and get on with your life, but you’ve canceled appointments for an initial consultation with a divorce lawyer.

7. You make constant declarations that you want to work things out with your husband, but your once-benign fantasies about having an affair are beginning to take shape in reality – a work colleague asks you to lunch, an e-mail correspondent turns flirtatious, or you are pleased that the guy you play tennis with is getting divorced.

8. You say that you crave emotional connection, but when your spouse is unavailable, you watch television instead of calling a friend. You may not be such a great emotional connector yourself.

9. You feel as if you’ve tried everything and despair that anything will ever get better, even when you know your spouse is trying to change.

10. You know you will have trouble explaining to your children, now and in the future, why you ended the marriage. You are not sure that ending the pain you are in now justifies the pain that they will be in later.

            According to Doherty, surveys show that “forty percent or more of divorced people regret their divorce and that the great majority of divorced people believe that one or the other of them could have worked much harder to save the marriage” (p. 130). His own research shows that “in forty percent of divorces at least one partner thinks the marriage could still be saved” right up to the time of the divorce decree (p. 130).

            Doherty wrote a lot about the necessity of leadership in a marriage. “In the best marriages, both people are leaders, although sometimes at different times” (p. 131). One of Doherty’s colleagues said that “every marriage has a you, a me, and an us” in it. While partners are fighting for what is best for them personally, someone has to fight for the good of the marriage. How does one go about fighting for their marriage? Here are a few ways suggested by Doherty:

1. Speak about the good of your marriage….

2. Decide you are going to work on personal, unilateral change for the sake of your marriage….

3. Ask yourself [if] you are expecting your mate to meet all our needs….

4. If you are very angry or frustrated with your spouse over an ongoing problem, ask yourself whether this is a “marriage breaker” if nothing changes….

5. If your spouse uses the “d” word (divorce) in an argument, say clearly that you do not want to divorce….

6. Insist that the two of you get help together….

7. If your spouse asks you to move out, and you want to salvage the marriage and genuinely change yourself to do so, refuse to move….

8. Even if you are separated, you can keep working on the marriage by working on yourself... (pp. 132-134).

            Marital leadership can save many marriages that otherwise would end for lack of someone standing up for them. Husbands and wives, fathers and mothers can strengthen their families, communities, and nation by not rushing into divorce.

What Should Be Done to Bring Back Election Integrity?

             The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the topic of election fraud and the possibility for free and fair elections. Any honest person will admit that there was election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Democrats first claimed that there was no fraud. They then admitted that there was fraud but declared that it was not widely spread. They finally admitted that there was wide-spread fraud, but there was not enough to change the election results. How do they know? How does anyone know?

            The Heritage Foundation has proof that election fraud has been happening for numerous elections, and they say that election fraud is “real.” In their Election Fraud Database, there are “more than 1,300 cases of election fraud, [which] proves that election fraud does occur in American elections.” The cases include “Errors and omissions by election officials and careless, shoddy election practices and procedures or lack of training can also cause and have caused problems for voters and candidates alike.” Hans von Spakovsky at The Heritage Foundation says that “it doesn’t have to be this way” and suggests the following ways that States can “take action to restore integrity to our elections.” 

1. Verify the accuracy of voter registration lists. Computerized statewide voter registration lists should be designed to be interoperable so that they can communicate seamlessly with other state record databases to allow frequent exchanges and comparisons of information….

2. Verify citizenship of voters. Only lawful citizens can vote in federal elections. States should, therefore, require proof of citizenship to register to vote, as well as verify the citizenship of registered voters with the records of the Department of Homeland Security, including access to the E-Verify system.

3. Require voter ID. A voter should be required to validate his or her identity with government-issued photo ID to vote in-person or by absentee ballot (as states such as Alabama and Kansas require). Government-issued IDS should be free for those who cannot afford one.

4. Limit absentee ballots. Absentee ballots should be reserved for those individuals who are too disabled to vote in person or who will be out of town on Election Day and all early-voting days.

5. Prevent vote trafficking. Vote trafficking (also called “vote harvesting”) by third parties should be banned. That would ensure that candidates, campaign staffers, party activists, and political consultants are prohibited from picking up and potentially mishandling or changing absentee ballots and pressuring or coercing vulnerable voters in their homes….

6. Allow election observers complete access to the election process. Political parties, candidates, and third-party organizations should all be allowed to have observers in every aspect of the election process, because transparency is essential to a fair and secure system. The only limitation on such observers is that they cannot interfere with the voting and counting process….

7. Provide voting assistance. Any individuals providing assistance to a voter in a voting booth because the voter is illiterate, disabled, or otherwise requires assistance should be required to complete a form, to be filed with poll election officials, providing their name, address, contact information, and the reason they are providing assistance. They should also be required to provide a photo ID.

8. Prohibit early vote counting. To avoid premature release of election results, the counting of ballots, including absentee and early votes, should not begin until the polls close at the end of Election Day … [or] base the release of results until the evening of Election Day, subject to criminal penalties.

9. Provide state legislatures with legal standing. State legislatures must ensure that they have legal standing – either through a specific state law or through a constitutional amendment, if that is required – to sue other state officials, such as governors or secretaries of state, who make or attempt to make unauthorized changes in state election laws….

            Adoption of the nine suggestions stated above would go far to bring integrity back to American elections. However, they do not go far enough. Von Spakovsky suggested two actions that States should NOT take:

1. There should be no same day registration for voting. Registration should be required before Election Day to give election officials sufficient time to verify the accuracy of the registration information contained on a registration form and to confirm the eligibility of potential voters.

2. There [should not] be automatic registration. States should comply with the National Voter Registration Act and provide registration opportunities t state agencies. However, all individuals should be asked at the time of the state agency transaction, such as the application for a driver’s license, whether they want to register to vote. No one should be automatically registered without their consent or knowledge….

            It was President Barack Obama who coined the phrase, “Elections have consequences.” Time has proven the truth of that statement. There was once a time when there was not much difference between the administration of a Democrat and the administration of a Republican. Both parties wanted to maintain the Constitution and to do what was best for the nation. The only difference was how they chose to do it. This is no longer true.

            Progressives and socialists have invaded the Democrat Party in mass numbers and have taken control of the party. They have also invaded the Republican Party, but their numbers there seem to be fewer. Republicans still fight to maintain a constitutional and American way of life, while Democrats want to change the Constitution and move the nation toward socialism.

            Elections truly do have consequences. This is the reason why elections must be free and fair with total integrity. Americans must be free to choose the kind of nation they want to have. If integrity is not restored to the elections, Americans will no longer have faith in them.

 

Should Biological Males Be Allowed on Female Sports Teams?

             The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the need to use common sense. Any unbiased person can look at six-foot-tall man and a five-foot-tall woman and recognize that the man would have numerous advantages over a female on any track team or other sports team. I do not know of anyone who has accused President Joe Biden as having common sense – or much sense at all.

            Since his first day in office, Biden has been busy signing executive orders, and one of them has to do with putting transgender men on women’s sports teams. According to Biden and many liberals, “transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.” They claim that it is only fair to all transgender women to compete against biological women. Not everyone agrees with them.

            According to Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, “New research in the British Journal of Sports Medicine says no.” In fact, “People across the political spectrum” agree that biological boys should not be allowed to compete against girls. 

In an unlikely coalition, outspoken LGBT activists have joined forces with soccer moms and conservatives to fight for the right to keep competition on a level playing field. Groups like Save Women’s Sports popped up, working in state legislatures like Idaho to keep the two genders separate….

The science, it turns out, supports them. In a study that even NBC felt compelled to cover, Dr. Timothy Roberts found that men undergoing a female transition still have a competitive biological edge…. Roberts made these discoveries studying Air Force servicemen and women who were in the process of transitioning. After several months of hormones and other treatment, the men in transition were still able to do more push-ups and run faster than their female counterparts.

            Even though the Air Force study is not “the same as being in the Olympics,” the two situations are comparable. There are researchers and doctors who disagree with Roberts’ findings, but other doctors agree. Dr. Michelle Cretella and other doctors have been saying for years that men and women are “profoundly and genetically different in ways that no medicine or surgery can change.” According to Cretella, “[M]en and women have – at a minimum – 6,500 genetic differences between us. And this impacts every cell of our bodies – our organ systems, how diseases manifest, how we diagnose, and even treat in some cases.”

            Even though the Nation Collegiate Athletic Association and many school districts downplay the differences, most Americans do not. According to Perkins, “most Americans can see through the political correctness to common sense. In polling late last year in 10 battleground states, 75% of voters said they object to mixed-gender sports.”

            Nicole Russell writes on this topic from the position of “a mother with two daughters.” She wonders if Biden is concerned about her daughters and other girls and women who just want to compete on a level playing field.

When males who “identify” as females compete against females, they place females at a competitive disadvantage. Male bodies present obvious physiological advantages: They have more muscle mass and less body fat than females. They have larger hearts and lungs, as well as greater bone density.

Even male hips are positioned differently, giving them the ability to run faster than women, on average. Biological and physiological differences between males and females are obvious and recognized, and it’s hardly a groundbreaking concept.

Yet to require biological males and females to compete against each other, under the guise of anti-discrimination laws, is to require that we as a society either deny these scientific facts or state that Title IX is now null and void.

We cannot accept both that men and women are exactly the same and that women are protected from sex discrimination.

            Russell is asking the nation’s representatives of the people to use common sense. Men and women are either the same, or they are different. They cannot be equal and different at the same time. Anyone with common sense can recognize this fact to be true. Biological males do not have a right to play on the same teams as biological female. They should remain on male teams, or transgender teams should be created for them.

What Are the Arguments for and against Trump Impeachment?

            Arguments for and against the impeachment and removal from office of former President Donald Trump were filed today. Trump fired his previous team of lawyers and hired two more in recent days. His current lawyers are David Schoen and Bruce Castor, and they filed a 14-page counterbrief today, the same day that Democrats managers filed an 80-page brief.

This post will give the arguments for and against the impeachment trial. Fred Lucas at The Heritage Foundation shared the following four key points made by Trump’s lawyers: 

1. Trump Did Not Incite

Schoen and Castor assert that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech at a rally near the White House did not incite the deadly riot in which protesters broke into the Capitol….

2. Senate Lacks Jurisdiction

The Senate has rejected a resolution from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying that the trial for Trump set to begin Feb. 8 would be unconstitutional. However, that likely will remain a major issue of debate.

Trump’s lawyers contend that since he no longer holds public office, the Senate lacks the authority to try him and possibly prohibit him from holding future federal office….

3. Not Unusual to Challenge Electoral Votes

Trump’s lawyers denied that, while president, he intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes Jan. 6 in a joint session of Congress.

“As is customary, members of Congress challenged electoral vote submissions by states under a process written into congressional rules allowing for the respective Houses of Congress to debate whether a state’s submitted electoral votes should be counted,” the Trump team writes. “In [January] 2017, Democratic members of Congress repeatedly challenged the electoral votes submitted from states where President Trump prevailed.” …

4. Absence of Chief Justice Signals Biased Trial

Chief Justice John Roberts declined to preside over the Senate impeachment trial since Trump no longer is president. The Constitution requires the chief justice to preside over a presidential impeachment trial….

            Lucas also shared the four key arguments from the Democrat impeachment managers. I suggest that it would have been easier for him to find the four key points in Trump’s 14 pages than to find the Democrat key points in their 80 pages. 

1. ‘Singular Responsibility’

Trump has “singular responsibility” for the violence that occurred Jan. 6, the House impeachment managers argue. They note that Trump had exhausted his options to contest the election results in court and should have conceded.

“Instead, he summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue,” the House managers state….”

2. ‘Disqualify Him’

The Senate can’t remove an official who no longer is in office. However, the House prosecutors insist, “the Senate should convict President Trump and disqualify him from holding or enjoying [what the Constitution calls] ‘any Office or honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States.’”

3. ‘Former Official Remains Subject to Trial’

In January, the Senate voted 55-45 to proceed with the trial of Trump, rejecting a resolution from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asserting that it would be unconstitutional for the Senate to try a private citizen who no longer is in office.

Although a majority voted to proceed, the fact that 45 senators saw constitutional problems in moving ahead demonstrates that the Senate isn’t likely to reach the 67 votes needed to convict and disqualify Trump from holding future federal office….

4. ‘Grievous Betrayal’

The memorandum from the House prosecutors states that on Jan. 6, Vice President Mike Pence was set to oversee a joint session of Congress “to perform one of its most solemn constitutional responsibilities: the counting of electoral votes for president of the United States.”

Interestingly enough, four years earlier, on Jan. 6, 2017, the leader of the House managers, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was among several House Democrats who objected to counting electoral votes for Trump.

However, Raskin and the other Democrats didn’t have a Senate sponsor required to back up their objection.

Challenging the count has become routine after Republican victories under the Electoral Act of 1887, which allows such challenges. In most cases, House members object but fail to get a Senate sponsor. Only in 1969, 2005, and 2021 did a House member and senator sponsor an objection to force debate over the Electoral College count.

The House impeachment managers contend a president has not openly supported such an objection…. 

            I openly admit that I am biased against the crazy Democrats. It seems to me that they are simply continuing the dirty games that they have played since Trump won the 2016 presidential election. They have hated Trump since 2016 because he was an outsider and not “one of them.” However, he had been to all the parties and heard all the gossip. He knew their dirty tricks and used that knowledge against them.

Trump knew that there was a Deep State full of swamp creatures, and he did his best to drain the swamp. He was not successful in draining it, but he did succeed in exposing the Deep State. The Mueller Report and the recently declassified FBI papers are proof of the Deep State. The swamp creatures are anxious to destroy Trump and his supporters because they fear that he will come back in four years with even more power. Their fear is the motivation for their hatred and vindictiveness – not patriotism or concern over national security.

Who Will Win the Peace Prize?

            On Sunday, former President Donald Trump received yet another nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also nominated recently for the prize. Both men were nominated for efforts made by the Trump administration to bring peace to the Middle East.

            When Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament nominated Trump back in September, he said the following: “For his merit, I think [Trump] has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees.

            The latest nomination came from Jaak Madison, an Estonian member of the European Parliament justified a Trump nomination as follows: “Donald Trump is the first president of the United States in the last 30 years, whose office the country has not started any war. In addition, several peace agreements have been made under his leadership in the Middle East, which has helped ensure stability in the region and peace.”

            Stacy Abrams, a Democratic politician from Georgia, was nominated for the Peace Prize by Norwegian parliament member Lars Haltbrekken. He gave the following for his justification: “Abrams’ work follows in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s footsteps in the fight for equality before the law and for civil rights.” He added, “Abrams’ efforts to complete King’s work are crucial if the United States of America shall succeed in its effort to create fraternity between all its peoples and a peaceful and just society.” 

            Abrams may be deserving of the nomination, but another nomination is quite questionable. When Petter Eide, Norwegian Member of Parliament, nominated Black Lives Matter, he justified his nomination by calling the violent group “a very important worldwide movement to fight racial injustice.”

            Any unbiased and thinking person should consider Trump as a likely candidate. He does have connection to the peace deals that were recently made in the Middle East, and he did not start any new wars in his four years in office. Black Lives Matter, otherwise known as BLM, is the movement that rampaged through numerous cities from May to September 2020. They may not have been involved in every riot, but they were certainly involved in most of them. How can anyone with good sense nominate BLM for the Nobel Peace Prize after watching them terrorize city after city for months?

            The ironic thing is that BLM is more likely to receive the prize than Trump. Abrams may beat them out, but Trump will mostly likely be far behind in votes. The prize committee is liberal and political, and they choose few conservatives or even people who have a record for working for peace. According to this site, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Palestinian leader and terrorist Yasser Arafat have all received the Nobel Peace Prize. The BLM may be just as qualified as any of the three former winners!