In response

Wow, guys, you've given me a lot to chew on.  I'm sorry it's taking me until today to respond, but there have been other things to attend to (like how my mother is going to survive this pandemic).  Forgive me for using my blog as a medium.  I will only be sharing it with you.  It's format makes it easier for me to respond to the many questions you've posed for me, so here goes:

I'm going to make an assumption about what kind of government is a Bernie/AOC type of government.  I'll assume you think it means it has more elements of "socialism" than you are comfortable with.  I describe myself as a Matthew 25 Christian of the Episcopal persuasion.  That means we are called to care for the "least of these."  For Jesus, that meant the sick, poor, widows, the imprisoned.  If the church or churches can't or won't, then the government should step in (to promote the General welfare -- preamble to the Constitution).  I could go on, but I thank you for giving me the opportunity to put this into words.  If that means a degree of "socialism", then so be it.

In particular, be careful about citing the bible to justify tight controls over "welfare" programs.  The specific quote is from II Thessalonians, 3:11-12:  "For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living." 

Now, having done some research, I might note that biblical scholars think this letter (along with some others) was not written by Paul, but by a follower written in his style.  Contrast the harsh language used here with the language of I Corinthians 13, which scholars agree was written by Paul.  Paul was writing to a church that he himself  had "planted" to use the current vernacular.  Paul himself was preaching that the second coming is just around the corner.  So, his followers were taking an "eat, drink, and be merry" approach.  This was Paul doing a certain amount of backtracking, because he realized that the end times were not immediately ahead.

Regardless, having studied the bible a good deal as a layman for around thirty years, I find, as a Christian, I am safest in citing the gospels and the words of Jesus as recorded there:

• Love your neighbor as yourself.
• Love your enemies.
• Love one another as I have loved you.

Also, don't forget that there are several successful countries whose governments reflect democratic socialism;  most of Scandinavia, Germany, France, to name a few.  They have elements of socialism and capitalism, don't they?  Venezuela is not the best example, because it's corruption, not socialism, that has caused it to be a semi-failed state.  

As for open borders, in the aftermath of 9/11, no one in their right minds would be for open borders and you don't hear any Democrats saying they are for open borders.  There are a lot of Republicans and certain media outlets who accuse Democrats of being for open borders, but I'm sorry.  Democratic leadership is not and has never been.  That having been said, I don't think it is right to completely shut off the asylum process.  

The United States has a spotty record as regards asylum seekers.  Terry, I would ask you to think about the logic of  "If an asylum seeker can't support himself, he shouldn't be allowed in."  They are ASYLUM SEEKERS for crying out loud, looking for protection in a safer environment than their home countries, where they experienced war, persecution, corrupt governments, or torture.  Of course, they are not going to be able to support themselves immediately.  I speak with some experience, having, through my church, been introduced to a gentleman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who had to flee his country after he was persecuted, tortured, his wife raped, and his brother-in-law murdered because he was a member of an opposition party.  It took him, his wife, and his seven children ten months to work their way to the southern border near San Diego.  He applied for asylum, but it was denied, because he didn't complete it with the help of an official French translator.  (He had asked for a French translator to help him, but that was denied as well.)  I visited with him three times in the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, where he had been detained, off and on, for two years.  He had been detained in other detention centers as well, all remote from any meaningful legal assistance.  He came close to deportation, but through the help of supporters, that was put on hold.  He wants to work but our government will not allow it.  He has to wait for his work permit a ridiculous amount of time.

Abortion--jeez why do we always come to this?  No one I know is pro-abortion.  You may think it is a matter of semantics, but I choose the term pro-choice.  Frankly, I don't think three old men should be telling a young woman what to do with her body.  Joe, I don't know the particulars of your situation, but it sounded pretty dreadful for you and I'm sorry you had to experience that.  Having said that, we put the burden on young women but not on their male "accomplices".  It's become a cliche, but when I hear people say they are pro-life, my immediate response is, "Are you willing to support this woman by providing access to contraception, this child through good education, good healthcare, an economy that promises opportunity?"  I would go on to ask if they support capital punishment?  In my mind, you can't have it both ways.

Let's talk about the form of government for a while.  A republic, by definition, is "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. The primary positions of power within a republic are attained, through democracy, oligarchy, autocracy, or a mix thereof, rather than being unalterably occupied. "   Now we say we are a democratic republic.  Ours is a democratic form of government, and the founders had some great ideals which they embodied in the constitution.  Sometimes, however, we fail to live out those ideals.  There are two areas of particular concern for me now:

1. Gerrymandered congressional districts do injury to a representative form of government.  Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty.  Many states are starting to establish non-partisan committees to set the congressional districts.  That seems like a good idea to me.
2. Big money in politics turns us more into an oligarchy (like Russia) where a few very wealthy individuals have an undue amount of influence over our government.

I find a strict or originalist interpretation of the Constitution abhorrent.  Times change, and Madison, who authored much of the Constitution, was wise to include an amendment process.  However, I don't think he could have foreseen a weapon like the AR15.  He also did not foresee our country united behind an effort to place a man on the moon.  Since we all pitched in, was that socialism?

This comes up most often with regard to the second amendment.  First, if you dig into its history, you'll find that it was a compromise between free and slave state positions.  The "militias" to which it refers were groups who rounded up escaped slaves and felt they (the militias) needed to be armed.  There is nothing in the amendment about defending individuals from an encroaching government.   I consider it a fear tactic to raise that as a reason for continuing our adherence to the amendment.  Even if you read the "militias" as necessary for the defense of the various states, that argument goes out the window with the establishment of our various armed forces, including the state-based National Guard.  Joe, since you brought it up, even if the government does come gunning for you, what are you going to do against bazookas, mortars, tanks, and aircraft?  I don't think your AR15 will be much help.

But, seriously, if you believe in the system of government with its checks and balances, how realistic a fear is that anyway?

Now, let's get to the elephant in the room:  the President.

Actually, Joe, we do have some common ground.  I'm concerned about Joe Biden and his numerous misstatements.  I, frankly, do think he may be slipping a bit.  But I've been watching the President a lot (it's hard to miss him).  Talk about slipping!  He had trouble getting the word "virus" out in his message from the oval office the other night and that's not all.  The message was full of confusing, incomplete statements to the people at a time when confusion is the last thing needed.  And this is not the only slip of the tongue--not by a long shot.  The late night comedians have been given so much material by him.

I think he should have been impeached, but not so much for the business about Ukraine.  You can choose to believe him about the Mueller report being biased if you want, but Robert Mueller has a reputation for honesty that is hard to match, as does Jim Comey.  I think he should have been impeached for the ten or eleven instances of obstruction of justice cited in the Mueller Report.  And we all witnessed one or more of them because they were public. I'll never forget the interview with Leonard Holt of NBC when he stated that he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing."

With Ukraine, the obstruction of Congress was equally obvious and public.

I'm troubled by the man's character.  He lies or misspeaks daily, if not hourly.  He clearly expects those who report to him to praise him.  Can anyone forget that first Cabinet meeting back in 2017? 

Why has he not divested himself of his business interests?

I've gone on way too long.  Thank you for your patience if you've made it this far.