Letter to the Editor: Response to letter writer's confusion
A letter writer recently criticized both Bob Uppgaard and myself for our separate, independently expressed assessments of President Trump's performance in office, especially of Trump's widely feared anti-stability stands on separation of powers and upholding constitutional law.
Dale Probasco accused me of expressing an opinion having no fact or truth. For Mr. Probasco's due consideration, would he like the short version or comprehensive? For a comprehensive overview, just Google "trump quotes that challenge constitutional laws" and try wading through the 5,500,000 results - Forbes, National Review, US News, The Atlantic, PBS, National Constitution Center, etc.
The constitutional threats didn't just begin after he assumed office. In one example, "Trump threatens to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters" - PBS, Feb. 27, 2016. "I love free press. ... We ought to open up the libel laws, and I'm going to do that."
If Mr. Probasco, even as an earnest student of history, seems confused regarding this president's reliance on verbalizing alternative realities to fabricate messages of falsehoods, he is not alone. Trump has constantly challenged constitutional law in his press and Twitter statements with dizzying rapidity (see "Trump and the Constitution: A Year In Review," Constitution Daily, National Constitution Center, Jan. 26, 2018).
Oh, the president was "just joking" (as per his press secretary's classic cover-up), so not a problem? In crucial situations, words matter. Expressing menacing humor at 30,000 feet will get your flight diverted, and you'll be escorted off the plane by federal agents, wearing handcuffs.
Echo Journal columnist Pete Abler recently declared, "Truth is not negotiable." Both Mr. Uppgaard's letter and my own suggested that Abler's concept is true only if (1) your premises are universally sound, and (2) history does not prove otherwise.
Let us hope U.S. history ultimately confirms a true conscience.