The Ascendant Project

by Brian Smyers

When I was young and in college, I was part of a Bible Study call the Search of Truth.   The series started with a friend of mine, Kelly, reading John 18:36-38 which occurs during Jesus’s trial in front of Pontius Pilate. 

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

When I was part of this study, and my time growing up in the church, I thought this was a deep question going to the core of communication, philosophy, politics and theology.  Now that I am older, I am more of the mindset to where I hear, “what is truth to a man who rules instead of governs. Is truth even relevant if your position when your position is to do whatever it takes to keep power?

These questions makes one more skeptical of things a President or press secretary may say, as well as more cynical of government as a whole.  But that said, what are we gonna do?  Give up trying to make the world better?  Are we going just going to let those with power, resources, capital, and money of small countries, shape the world to be better for them, and not for millions of our fellow citizens?

Our media is very segregated.  Fox says one thing, MSNBC says another.  There are decisions made in what to cover and how to cover it.  Does it fit a greater narrative? It is natural if one side has a skewed narrative there will be a reaction from the other side to counter that narrative.  As a result common people listen to the sources that are comfortable to them and their political beliefs.

My Echo chamber averages to the left.  Morning Joe before work.  MSNBC between service calls in my car.  I subscribe to The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.   I miss listening to NPR.  I need to make an effort to listen to that instead of MSNBC in my car.  Contrary to some opinions, NPR is actually pretty down the center in terms of reporting.

That said, I would like the listener to ask themselves, how does one discern what is true?  One way, I have found” to listen to what attorneys say in court, even in cases that are lost. They are not allowed to lie to the court.  Attorney’s risk being disbarred if they do.  During the 2020 election, there was a huge gap on what Trump’s attorneys would say on the TV and what they said in court.  As a result, Trump lost 60+ court cases, most for lack of legal standing.  The one case they won was about how close observers could get to the vote counters.  But people listen to TV more than they listen to court cases, and this lack of public discernment led directly to January 6th.

It is important for the public to verify stories they hear.  And we all fall victim to believing false information from time to time.  I recently posted on my Facebook about a story that occurred in 2017 thinking it was current.  I was of course called out for it by a conservative friend of mine.  Which leads me to my next point.

It is important to have friends across the political aisle.  Your relations with them need to be good enough to where they can call you out on your bullshit.  Those who share your echo chamber do not have the capability or capacity to do so.  The reason for this is simple.  If you share similar echo chambers, what ever you say is going to sound right to them, whether the story is true or not.

Finally, we need to make a commitment to be well informed.  I rely on the Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp which owns the Wall Street Journal to balance out my biases.  Although the opinion pages sometimes make me scream, I find their reporting to be both in depth and accurate.

I also try to use sources that are not afraid to issue corrections.  Corrections are important because they testify to both humanity of their journalists, and the integrity of their journalistic standards.  Any site that does not issue corrections demonstrates they do not care about truth or integrity.  Rather they are only concerned about agenda.

Unfortunately, we do not live at a time where Press Time is a thing.  When we relied primarily on newspapers, a set press time would help give reporters time to break through the fog of war and find the facts of a breaking story.  Now, with the advent of the internet, and the 24 hour news cycle, being first is usually valued higher than being right.  Turning off the TV and reading a newspaper, online or physical copy, at a specific time of day may help you in your search for truth as well as lower your stress levels.

© 2025 The Ascendant Project

Correction: In the interview it was said that “Love Your Enemies” was written by Arthur C Clark, when the correct author was Arthur C Brooks.

The post What is Truth? appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

by Susan Smyers (guest contributor)

My point of reference

I was raised in the Evangelical United Brethren Church which later merged with the Methodist church to form the United Methodist Church. My maternal Grandmother was a Godly woman who taught us by example that we were to show love to all. With her encouragement, my cousin and I visited “shut-ins” from our church and brought them flowers. We loved to sing so we practiced songs that we learned from the radio and would knock on doors and sing to them. Grandma always said “Beauty is as beauty does” so being judgmental, it wasn’t acceptable behavior, although it wasn’t verbalized as a rule. If we made a negative comment about someone, my Grandmother or Aunt would counter it with something positive.

We were to put others first but didn’t do it to be liked or accepted. We did it to brighten someone’s day and because showing kindness to others is how Christ wants us to live.

My mother was also a God loving woman but she had a little more of a realistic approach to life. That was probably due in part to the fact that she married into a Pennsylvania German family, very different from her own. My dad was the son and brother of verbally abusive alcoholics. His mother, however, was a church-going German Lutheran who was gruff but not unkind.

What is a Christian?

Most people don’t understand that just because someone calls themselves a Christian that we are all the same. There are 3 kinds of Christians.  First is the Christian who is not Christian by “religion” but by relationship with Christ. They study the Bible, and have an active, daily prayer life, talking to Him about anything and confessing to others that he is the Son of God who paid for their sins on the cross.  Then there is the Christian by category.  They are Christian as apposed to Jewish, etc., but know little about what it means to be one.  Then there is the Christian “Pharisee” that has a rule book apart from the ten commandments that might include things like wearing shorts, cutting your hair, or any of a long list of things that will send you to hell.  They are judgers, condemners and haters who see only the faults of others but none of their own.  They make people turn away from the faith rather than bring them into it.  Unfortunately, they are the most vocal Christians and the group that the rest of us are assumed to be.

Trump, a Categorical Christian, now claims to have accepted Christ since his attempted assassination.  If that is truly the case, we should see a major change in behavior and empathy sometime in the near future.  Christ  taught us to be humble, not  prideful, to put ourselves last and others first. He said that the meek will inherit the earth, the merciful will receive mercy, the peacemakers are the children of God, and more.  Those are traits that up until now he has considered to be a weakness but in truth they will show us if this conversion is true.   

Today’s World

I am very troubled about where our country is headed while under Trump’s leadership.  He is backed by loveless, judgmental Christians who in my opinion have lost their way.   It seems that Christ has been replaced by Trump as their savior.

I rarely see love demonstrated today in this ME FIRST society.  A society that thinks that it’s weak to seek strength from anywhere but inside yourself (or that we are actually little gods….how arrogant!)….and yet those people still cry that they are empty inside. 

Who took my Republican Party?

There was a time when the Republican Party seemed, at least, to subscribe to Christian morals. Morals are no longer important as they follow a man who has none.   The republican politicians line up behind him like Stepford wives, I believe  they do so in fear more than in support.

By the way, I am not alone in my concern.  There are ministers and televangelists, as well as publications such as Christianity Today who agree. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/07/trump-election-russell-moore-politics-evangelicals/

The Christian message is to love our neighbors, love our enemies, not to trash the lords name, don’t be prideful, put others needs before your own, and to be humble.  Don’t be judgmental of others unless you, too, walk on water.  We are, however,  called to make wise decisions which require a certain kind of judgement and discernment.  We are to be merciful and forgiving because how well we forgive determines how we will be forgiven. How much of these virtues line up with our president’s actions?

  I believe that Character counts.     A president does not have to be a Christian to be a good leader, however, a good leader does identify with a group for his own gain.

   Our political parties need to stop pointing fingers at each other and begin to do what this project is trying to do.  Listen to the other side…really listen…..and learn from them.  

The post My Background and Reasons Why I am a Never-Trumper appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

By Julius Knapp

Modern society is tricky. Massive amounts of information are constantly streaming towards us. Processing that information, making sense of it, evaluating sources, and piecing it all together in real time is practically impossible. For this reason, most of us select just a few streams or only certain information from friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, cable news, or late-night comedy. With the benefit of only having to view the world from a few select perspectives, we can calmly and assuredly navigate society and go about our lives.

The unfortunate drawback to this is that this practice often introduces biases and conflicts can and often do arise between people with different information. How that conflict is handled is what this essay is about? How do we decide who is right? How do we know when to stick to our position or cede the argument?

To be clear, this essay is not about the relative value of Fox News and MSNBC or any other source where you might obtain your information. It’s also not about how we form or whether it’s right or wrong to be biased. At its core, this essay is about the one thing we as Americans need to find within ourselves again. The thing I spoke about in my first essay: bravery. This article is about how we exercise bravery in our public discourse. Do we bravely stand strong against opposing views? Or do we abandon our view and bravely accept another?

Maintaining some skepticism is the best way to answer these questions. Skepticism is a questioning attitude or doubt towards knowledge claims. Being a skeptic makes one suspicious of the beliefs, statements, or arguments put forth by others. Unfortunately, skepticism is often confused with cynicism. Cynicism is the belief that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere. This attitude, while rooted in skepticism, introduces the idea that others cannot or should not be trusted. Many people who describe themselves as skeptics often fail to understand the distinction with cynicism.

True skeptics do not start from a position of distrust. Instead, they use Hanlon’s Razor to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance. Another apt adage might be the Russian proverb, popularized by President Ronald Regan, “Trust, but verify”. Skepticism assumes that the person making a claim or statement is being honest, at least about their premise. The falsehood arises instead from an error in their reasoning.

Fallacious reasoning abounds in politics. To be fair, sound and logical reasoning is hard- it requires a degree of rigor that most of us don’t have the time or patience to apply appropriately. As a result, the label “liar” should be applied rarely- in my opinion, only when the speaker has deliberately made a false statement with the intention to deceive- and not so casually applied to the armchair politicians we normally encounter. You, however, since you have time to read this essay and, hopefully, listen to the associated discussion, should learn how to avoid some common fallacies.

The first I will discuss is the Middle Ground Fallacy. This fallacy, common among cynics, is that the truth between two opposing arguments must lie between them. Consider the following:

Gun Control Advocate: Guns have no place in modern society and should be banned

Second Amendment Advocate: Guns are inherently safe and protect the people from a despotic government

Middle Ground: We should ban assault rifles

Alternatively:

Science: Evolution is one of the most successful theories in all of science

Religion: For many thousands of years, religion has offered the most complete picture for the development and diversification of life

Middle Ground: Intelligent design provides a model of guided evolution

I will leave it to the reader to determine the weights of the arguments in the previous examples. The reader should recognize, however, how the Middle Ground Fallacy may be used to ignore nuanced evidence or halt further debate.

In some ways, the Middle Ground Fallacy is a manifestation of the False Analogy Fallacy. The latter fallacy draws a comparison between the topic of discourse and an analogous topic. As is the case with many analogies, however, careful attention to detail will reveal that the comparison is overly simplistic. Here are three such False Analogies:

Both political parties practice gerrymandering, engage in partisan profiteering, and suppress their political opponents.

Trans women are biologically male.

Massachusetts successfully implemented Romneycare, so the United States can successfully implement Obamacare.

There are many ways the subject of the discussion is not like their analog. Some of those differences are immaterial or unimportant. Others are both material and important and can lead to an invalid conclusion.

Indeed, there are many ways we can fail to reason correctly. Three other common ways the reader should familiarize themselves with are the Conjunction Fallacy, the Disjunction Fallacy, and the Burden of Proof Fallacy. The list could easily continue for many more pages. Humanity’s ability to deceive itself, intentionally or not, is boundless. And of course, none of this says anything about how to reason correctly. That subject could span volumes.

This is why brave skeptics everywhere are so critical to our democratic republic or republican democracy or however we want to label it. With bravery we can identify and expose those who would lead us astray and support and elevate those that would lead us forward.

The post On Cynicism and Skepticism appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

By Nick Fischer

When Brian first approached me with the idea of the Ascendant Project several years ago, I was hopeful, but also immensely apprehensive about this monumental task. How would we be able to create a space to host differing political views and opinions, while maintaining civility, kindness, and friendships? How could we air our grievances, vocalize our thoughts on such deeply held stances, and break from tribalism while still feeling heard and respected?

As time continued, and pandemics side-lined many of our lives, I continued to think on the “how.” As weeks turned into months, and months into years, my hours spent in quiet introspection pondering this amounted to several weeks. The only “answer” that I kept coming back to was, “I don’t know.” I lieu of that, an actual answer would be for each of us to make a continued, non-attacking, non-judgmental, good-faith effort to understand the how and why the other person views things and believes the way that they do. This cannot be a one-way street: it must be reciprocal, and both sides must be willing to yield, to maintain respect of the other person, and to change (albeit with great difficulty at times) our views, opinions, and preconceived notions about any topic. I did not know how much “I don’t know” would help me better understand what I do know now.

My relationship with Brian began at time in my life when I needed it most. I was recently discharged from the military after two tours of honorable service and, suffering from PTSD, degenerative cartilage, and several TBI’s, as well as a recent scare with alcohol abuse, I was physically broken and emotionally scarred. I had served as an airborne infantry team leader, received a Purple Heart for wounds sustained in combat, and had been recommended for a Bronze Star Medal. I was diagnosed with Stage 2 COPD, and my plans of making a career of the military like my father had done were dashed. In short, I felt “chewed up and spat out,” at 24 years of age. In a moment of vulnerability during one of our camping trips, I opened up and Brian just listened, without judgement, or the malice I often felt towards myself. It was one of the most refreshing and liberating feelings I had ever experienced.

As our friendship grew and our conversations continued, the topic of politics inevitably presented itself. With our views on politics being influenced by a lifetime of unique experiences, there is little wonder as to why they are so profoundly held, and deeply connected to one’s “self.”  These discussions were uncomfortable, frustrating, and arduous (and we failed on more than several occasions to discuss a subject), yet we both kept empathy and respect of the other person first, and made an active effort to ensure that we both felt “heard.” I will never agree 100% with Brian on several topics, but his thoughts and insights have allowed me re-evaluate my own views and stances, and better understand why I feel certain ways about different topics. Through my re-evaluations and growth, I’ve realized that my oath to the Constitution of the United States has consistently been my bedrock. With no expiration date on that oath, it has been my own guiding light in times of uncertainty. I am a Conservative leaning Constitutionalist who believes strongly in individual freedom and choice. Even if I do not agree with the choices of others, if it their right, my agreement is not required.

Each and every one of us want to be heard, to feel that our opinions matter, and be valued for who we are. Our country is going through a volatile and tormentous time, and trust, from government to neighbor, is nearing an all-time low. We must bring empathy back and look first at the intent of perceived slights, and then perhaps more Conservatives can be best friends with a Liberal. At the very least, it is my profound hope that my contributions to the Ascendant Project will inspire others, and perhaps crack-the-door to more meaningful communication.

The post An Unexpected Friendship appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

Surprise! Special Wednesday Insert Edition!

Julius Knapp and Brian Smyers discuss the Hands Off protests of 4/5/25 that garnered 1000 protesters in Frederick Maryland, “hundreds” in Westminster Maryland, and an estimate of 100,000 on The Mall in DC.

We also discuss if this is an indication of a “hot summer” of protests this year. Pics and videos on the website.

The post Discussion:  Hands Off appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

Joe Manchin was a United States Senator representing the State of West Virginia.  He came into office November 15th 2010 and was able to maintain his office until January 3rd, 2025.  A member of the Democratic Party but representing a conservative state, he was viewed as a centrist and moderate.  Some even called him a conservative Democrat.

Being forced to straddle his constituency and his party loyalty was not an issue when the Senate was not evenly divided.  However, in years where the Senate was 50-50 or 51-49, his vote became crucial.  Representing West Virginia under these circumstances would prove to be rather stressful for him, culminating in his decision not to run for reelection in 2024.

According to fivethirtyeight.com (before it was dissolved on March 5th of this year), Manchin voted with Trump during his first term 50.4% of the time and Biden 87.9% of the time during his Presidency.  

When Joe Biden was elected into office, one of his first pieces of legislation was the Build Back Better Act.  Joe Manchin thought this piece of legislation would prove to be inflationary, and voted against it.  Eventually because of his concerns, the legislation would be revised and put forth again as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.  Manchin voted yes, and the bill passed the Senate on a score of 51-50, with Vice President Harris casting the tie breaking vote.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, also called the COVID-19 Stimulus Package, was a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus.  Manchin opposed an amendment during debate that would have had the first $10,200 of unemployment benefits be tax free.  Eventually he agreed to an amendment instead that would have unemployment benefits end September 6th. He was also able to negotiate a lower amount for each weekly check.   During negotiations for other aspects of this bill, he opposed a provision in the bill that would have raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour.  After negotiations with Manchin, income caps for stimulus check eligibility to individuals and couples were lowered from $100,000 to $75,000 and $200,000 to $100,000 respectively.  

He was considered a possible Presidential Candidate for the No Labels ticket, when No Labels was considering getting a moderate and independent candidate on the ballot.   When No Labels decided that an independent run would likely result in Trump getting elected, Manchin declined to endorse Harris because of her position of ending the Senate filibuster.  

I said in the interview for Julius’s article, “Unaffiliated”, that it is important to have a pain in the ass when it comes to your political allies.  These people moderate idealistic aspirations and bring them down to earth.  There were many times when I hated Joe Manchin.  But I knew the Senate was split 50-50 Republican and Democrat during the 117th United States Congress.   Without his vote, the American Rescue Plan would not have passed.  Without his support, the Inflation Reduction Act would not have passed.

Looking back, it is obvious that his fears about the inflationary aspects of these bills were well founded.  If Democrats had given into him more, Harris may have won the White House.  It should also be noted that if Harris had succeeded in removing the filibuster, Donald Trump would be getting more legislation passed and have to rely less on Executive Orders today.

I am for many of the things the left proposed that Manchin opposed.  However, I am cognizant of the fact that he was a Democrat representing a conservative State.  Should a Republican have held that seat during that time, those two bills would not have passed.   Once Manchin retired, Republican Jim Justice won election and now holds his Senate Seat.  Without Manchin being a pain in the ass to Democrats in the Senate, it will be harder to take that chamber in 2026.  If Democrats are truly going to be a “big tent party” and take the middle, we need more Joe Manchins. More importantly, we need to learn to respect and welcome people like him.

Sources and Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin#U.S._Senate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/politics/joe-manchin-not-endorse-harris-filibuster/index.html

The post Joe Manchin Reconsidered appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

Unfortunately there will be no post this week. However, please enjoy these photos of our camping trip we recently had. Also please enjoy this humorous video of a popcorn malfunction at the campfire which resulted in first degree burns on my wrist!

I registered to vote when I turned 18. I remember being so excited to practice what I felt was my civic duty. Being able to finally participate in American democracy, in “the great experiment”, was an honor. So few people before me (historically speaking) or globally had the option to experience that honor. And so I went to the MVA (Maryland’s Motor Vehicle Administration) updated my license and selected “Democrat” as my party.

For many years afterwards, I was a casual supporter of the Democratic Party. At the time, it was easy to do so. I was surrounded by other like-minded members (in central suburban Maryland it’s hard not to be) and the national political environment placed Democrats in a strong position. Sure, Clinton had been impeached, but the federal budget showed a surplus, businesses were flourishing thanks to the growing world wide web, and social progress was significant. Eventually, it became clear that those things would not last or that progress would be harder to come by than expected. Moreover, I was studying Mathematics with a minor in Philosophy and my interest in politics had waned. The next opportunity I had to update my political affiliation, I changed to “Unaffiliated”.

Years later, after the Great Recession had decimated the housing, stock, and financial markets, the country found itself fighting in two wars, and the Patriot Act and Great Recession challenged our democracy, I found myself becoming more curious. I listened to C-SPAN on the radio every time I was in the car, read more about the history of politics in the US, and engaged in conversations with friends and co-workers. (As a brief aside and as I think about this now, it was really the perfect storm of minor life changes that made this period in my life possible. WHFS had just gone off the air so I found myself looking for other things to listen to in the car. Wikipedia had matured enough where that kind of information was easily accessible. And I found myself working at Borders, a melting of people and ideas from all different backgrounds if there ever was one.)

I learned many lessons during that period. Perhaps the most important was that most politicians are genuinely good people. Listening to many of them speak on the House or Senate floor, it’s clear that most want what is best for their districts or states and that they make every effort to listen to their constituents. Seriously, I challenge anyone to turn on C-SPAN and listen to a handful of speakers from the opposing side. You’ll find yourself nodding your head in agreement through most of their speech.

The second lesson was that most of the politicians that appear on the popular cable news shows are only there to rally their base or coerce the media into giving them a larger voice. They’re not there to present carefully reasoned and nuanced arguments; they’re there either as a puppet of their party or to serve their own ambition. With rare exception, I view these people as the dunces of political discord or as the class clowns of Congress. The third lesson I learned is that, unfortunately, these are the only people most Americans see on a regular basis. And to be clear, I don’t blame my fellow Americans, any of them, for that behavior. There’s only so much time a person can be expected to sustain interest in the issues, most of which will never directly affect them. To be honest, I don’t really blame the politicians, at least the more junior of them, on those popular news shows either. Listen to the differences in how they speak to Congress and how they speak to the media, and I think you’ll agree that some have just become victims of the party, themselves coerced into arguing for or defending a position neither they nor their constituent believe in.

It’s for those reasons, that I now proudly say that I am, still, “Unaffiliated”. While my original reasons for becoming “Unaffiliated” might not have been very strong, I see now the real harm that party affiliation does to this country and to us as Americans. Truly, the response to the question “Are you Republican or Democrat?” should always be “I’m an American”. Identity politics is a powerful motivator and it starts with dividing everyone into “Republican” or “Democrat”, enforcing the “us” vs “them” mentality. Second, becoming “Unaffiliated” provides more freedom for us to explore ideas and negotiate, rather than debate, to find the best ones. We’re a nation of 333 million people with at least as many problems. It can’t be expected that anyone’s “side” will have the exact solution. And lastly, becoming “Unaffiliated” encourages politicians to make the best decisions and to collaborate with their constituents. Otherwise, they can simply look at the voter registrations and know with some confidence that they’re job is safe.

It is my hope that more people will choose to register as “Unaffiliated”. To those that say, “But I won’t be able to vote in a primary”, I say, “Let’s advocate for open primaries”. Let’s pick the best candidates rather than just the best Republican or best Democrat. At the very least, you’ll get less mail and fewer phone calls :-)

The post Unaffiliated appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

As I have mentioned in previous posts and interviews, it has been a long time since I’ve been able to see out of my left eye.   The lens with the cataract was removed 4 weeks ago, but the cataract had spread to the capsule around the lens.  However, as the inflammation has lessened, now I’m beginning to see images, and lines on the road are becoming visible.  I can see the fingers on my hand with my arm extended.

However, my retina doctor told me months ago to be careful, because when I begin to see again I will be getting “false information” from the eye.  He has spoken the truth.  The lines on the road from the left eye do not line up with the lines on the road I see with my right eye.  They vary by as much as 30 degrees.  They aren’t crisp.  They are wavy.  I have to be wary and remember to trust my right eye.  I often close my left eye while driving, and use the blind spot mirrors religiously.

My left eye is lazy.  It hasn’t been able to focus on anything for months.  It will take a while for my brain to use these 2 perspectives and interpret them as one reality.  Until then, I must be patient with myself, laugh at my lack of depth perception and keep a positive attitude that things will eventually be okay.

I feel there is a metaphor here that can be applied to the American People in terms of skewing of information in dueling political echo chambers.

It is going to be a while before we can focus properly again.  And during this time, neither side trusts the other’s perspective.  I do think the right are beginning to go through some buyer’s remorse and that remorse will be greatly increased as mass layoffs occur from the federal government. 

My hunch, is that this term is going to be so heated and divisive that the public will want to come together when it is all over.  But I also know that bad blood just solidifies hatred, so this country may be coming to an important crossroads.

Will we acknowledge our shared experience?  Or, will we vilify those who think differently and contribute to society in ways that we literally refuse to comprehend?

During Trump’s first term, I thought there was a missed opportunity between white libertarians and Black Lives Matter.   BLM at its core was about giving accountability to those awarded with qualified immunity.  The name of Black Lives Matter was because they felt that black lives did not matter to the people and governments of the United States, and it was a reminder that they do.  The libertarian think tank, CATO Institute, sided with them because when someone has qualified immunity, they can get away with anything, including murder so long as it is when they are on the clock.  Officers of the peace need always be held accountable, which was not happening with due process.

However in 2016 and 2017,  those who thought libertarianism was really about hating liberals and waving a Gadsden Flag found themselves swearing never to watch another NFL game because people kneeling as an act of asking their country to do better was deemed offensive and not patriotic.

This demonstrated that not listening to the concerns of – and in favor of the demonization of – others is easier than achieving an understanding even when there are common perspectives found across the political aisle or socioeconomic groups.  Just as my brain does not understand what my left eye sees, the people of the United States as a whole do not understand their own perspectives.  The average citizen does not care to understand the plight of other citizens outside of their friends or social groups.  The people of the United States, are very selfish in this regard.  It prevents us from understanding the simple truth that people are people.

We need an empathy first politics.  And empathy first is different than calling your constituency victims of scapegoats.  It is about understanding people’s needs and meeting them.  It fights against the concentration of wealth and power.  I believe a culture of empathy and decency is the only way we will tone down the rhetoric and move on from the Trump era.   Somewhere along the line there will also need to be accountability and forgiveness.  These things must occur before we get to a point where we are a fair people living in a fair country.  Should we achieve that, our vision will be 20/20.

References:

End Qualified Immunity by the Cato Institute.  https://www.cato.org/qualified-immunity

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure#isnt-qualified-immunity-entitled-respect

The post Dueling Visions appeared first on The Ascendant Project.

It’s difficult, verging on impossible, to articulate all the feelings of the past several weeks. President Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20 and has been hard at work stretching the limits of executive authority and power. Among the more alarming executive orders are:

On their face, these executive orders would seem to be anything but ordinary, some may even appear to be exceptionally positive. Who could be against government efficiency or accountability, the protection of sovereign wealth, or dealing with emergencies? (And to be clear, no one left, right, or center is against these ideas… on their face.) But the implementation of these orders has been anything but ordinary. As a DOD contractor, business owner, elder millennial, and Maryland resident, I’m seeing and feeling the effects of their implementation nearly every day.

For several decades at least, the mentality at the DOD in general was to keep our war fighters and fellow Americans safe. Our forward deployed troops engaged in two wars were under constant threat. The situation domestically, while not as actively hostile, was still one of constant concern and vigilance. It was my great honor to be part of that organization. Working hand in hand with some of this country’s bravest men and women. People who witnessed the attacks on 9/11, felt the calling to serve, and left their old lives behind to keep us all safe. I was not one of those people, but I still felt the pride that came with knowing that something I was doing would help them eventually get home safe.

It was that recent history that lead some to believe that the DOD was “untouchable”, immune from budget cuts and government shutdowns. Truly staggering amounts of money and manpower spent to support the mission. “Whatever it takes, and then some.” Could some of that be considered “waste”? It’s arguable, sure, but also a matter of perspective and government priorities at the time. Regardless, the contrast to today is stark. New and young government employees who were looking forward to a career of civil service now sit in meetings crying, wondering weather they will soon be unemployed.

The experience as a Maryland resident, where so many current and former federal employees live, is also notable. People who had spent years faithfully and earnestly serving the American public, must now stand by and watch their legacy and all that generations before them had built be cursed at or torn down.

To be clear, American life is and has always been one of constant change. To say that our history has been tumultuous might be a gross understatement. And we’ve had prior presidents assert their power in much the same way that President Trump is now. Indeed, it’s likely a court, regardless of political appointment, would find that many, if not all, of the Executive Orders that have been enacted are within the President’s Constitutional Authority. But that’s not really the point.

The Constitution is imperfect. That fact was known even to the great politicians, leaders, and thinkers present when the Constitution was enacted. The question of whether an act of the President is “Constitutional” is much different than the question of whether that same act is moral, ethical, or even in the best interests of the country. That’s why so many of the Constitution’s current 27 amendments were passed, to address, extend, or further protect the rights, liberties, and freedoms we all share. But it took brave people, of every political persuasion, to stand up and come together to make things better.

On average, we have amended the constitution every 10 years, but new amendments have come much less frequently. The last amendment was 34 years ago in 1992 and the one before that was in 1971. Surely, the Constitution is not complete. Moreover and in my opinion, the current flurry of Executive Orders (along with some of the more recent Supreme Court decisions) does present a Constitutional crisis. It’s clear that to many or even the majority of Americans, that the Constitution has not been interpreted or implemented as expected. A new generation of brave Americans is needed to address the needs of our country and to preserve our Democratic Republic for future generations.

To decide for oneself whether the current situation presents a constitutional crisis, I pose the following questions:

Regardless of the responses to those questions, I’ll present the following casual suggestions:

Whatever the case, it is clear, at least to me, that brave Americans are still needed to maintain constant vigilance and to work together for the betterment of all. The Constitution of our country only lives while we continue to breath life into it.

References:

“Presidential Actions”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/

The post The Constitutional Crisis appeared first on The Ascendant Project.