On Doing One's Civic Duty

I have just come back, with a stop off first at the supermarket, and a settling back in at home, from an early evening Town Hall meeting with our Congressman, which turned out to be a very liberal love-fest for the very liberal man.1  At least it was conducted civilly.  We had all signed up with an RSVP, since seating would be limited - it was held in a local (somewhat for me; nearly an hour away by public transport) high school's auditorium - and we were all given the chance to submit comments/questions ahead of time,2 plus they allowed people to line up for the two mikes available, and alternated between each choice of engagement with the process.

Congressman Alan Lowenthal was very forthright with his replies, which I am sure was enhanced by the fact that he knew that this section of his District was very liberal.3  And I found myself soon very out-of-step with the vast majority of the audience (the auditorium was not full, but was still a good turnout for the occasion), when his replies invariably made me cringe.

The question of Voter Fraud/Electoral Integrity?  'Voter suppression.'  (Shame on you, Alan.  You're being dishonest in the employment of this obvious party-line poop, and you know it.)  Illegal immigration?  Very pro-Dreamers.4  The issue of 'cyber-security' - which was presented in relation to the Trump-Russian Collusion drama (with the House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) getting boos from the audience, for 'deflecting' the Collusion caper into an area that might well show Hillary's involvement with 'cyber' issue criminality).  Alan steered a little wide on that one, not wanting to get into it too deeply; for partisan reasons becoming more and more obvious as time, and investigation, proceed.5  And he was also a bit evasive when it came to the subject of a paper trail of ballots in states that don't have that requirement.  And he failed to say anything at all about California's abysmal lack of Voter Integrity measures altogether.  Guns?  He largely stayed out of the fray on that one too, beyond pointing out that he has always voted against anything that the NRA is for, unless it brings in further safety measures.  (Big applause.)  To his credit, he pointed out that we really need to look more into the mental health matter regarding 'guns'.  I will say that something that I could very much support him on was his strong support for environmental issues.  Just as long as it doesn't stray over into the Global Warming/Climate Change scenario; which is really the hobby horse of the NWO Technocrats, using it as an excuse for totalitarian corporate control over us.  He unfortunately did pay them his respects when he came out for a carbon tax, as part of "incentivizing alternative energy" measures.  (Look into that matter a little further, Mr. Lowenthal, as to actually who is behind it.)

All in all, we have a long way to go to be coming closer together in this country on a lot of issues.  But fortunately, my Congressperson isn't a really far leftist.  Between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist, I'm not sure of much difference there; but between one of those categories and an outright socialist veering towards communist, I would place him in the former camp.  He really does dislike anything that smacks of dictatorship.

At least, that was my impression.  Now if it were a dictator from the Left............

As he said at the beginning of his sharing, before digging into the Comments/Questions from his audience (words the effect): "It's very difficult to get Change in this country."  Just how far would you go to get it, Rep. Lowenthal???  And what is 'it,' precisely, anyway?????????  

--

footnotes:

1 He - name of Lowenthal (quite a family name in politics in So Cal) - is not a far lefty.  For example, when someone in the audience took to the mikes to ask if he felt the Democrats should go for the impeachment of Trump "at least to get Pence in there," his position on the issue was honorable, to a point: his point being that impeachment is a major process for major issues - "high crimes and misdemeanors" - not just because you don't like the policies of the person in the office; that if the latter were the case, they would need to impeach both Trump AND Pence, since Pence is following the policies of Trump.
   Applause.  To impeach them both...I think a fair number of the audience were disappointed in his stance on the issue; it would appear that those extremists believe that you can impeach a president simply because you don't like him.  Weird.  But that's the far Left for you; for whom the end justifies the means.  Any and all means.  Take no prisoners.    

2 Mine, which it became very clear very quickly was not going to be one of those selected, for being  rather contrary to his position on the issue of 'immigration,' was the following:
   'Comment: The U.S. has a front door.  With a nice big Welcome mat, to those who qualify.  People from all over the world, coming here, and very welcome to.  Through the front door.
   'Question: What is your position regarding illegal immigrants - especially given that a number of cities are now allowing illegal aliens officially - officially - to vote in elections.'

3 He made a bit of a caustic remark about "those people over in Orange County," whom he was forced to represent as well because of the way that his District has been drawn up.  An issue - i.e., of gerrymandering - that he also touched on.  In a nutshell: He is agin its being used in a very partisan manner, by legislators.  It was obvious, by his demeanor and his replies, that he would prefer to represent his own kind, in a more democratic, people-first fashion.  So I kept my peace, in that audience.
   As, possibly, did some other Republicans/Independents present.  Not all of the audience applauded his liberal replies to questions; but a good majority of them did.
   So I saw the misleading nature of 'Town Hall' meetings.  They seem to have come to be just for the majority voters in the area.  At least that seemed to be the case in the one that I went to.

4 He of course is entitled to his opinion - which is colored/flavored with a passion for people "fleeing oppression" in their home countries - but he was unfair when he faulted Trump with wanting to bring the immigration process into the likes of other countries (Australia for one) which limit it to people who have some sort of skill to offer.  Here his passion for the 'oppressed,' and his very partisan digs at Trump, made him conveniently forget that a basic immigration policy does not exclude the additional issue of refugees and people fleeing oppression, to be considered on the merits of the individual case.
   As to his digs at Trump: He said, that, as a former psychologist in his academic days, he feels that  Trump's case is 'hopeless".  Applause, for the meat thrown to the wolves.
   (And as for the brushed-over issue of illegal immigration -which also includes the not insubstantial matter of the likes of MS-13 gangs and ISIS terrorists and gun and drug runners and child sex traffickers; my message to my representative in Congress:
   Rep. Lowenthal, a little advice: You don't reward wrongdoing, or you will get more of the same.)

5 For those who need to get up to speed on what is going down these days: Rep. Nunes is doing good work in ferreting out the truth about the Obama FBI's use of a dodgy, and Clinton campaign paid-for, dossier on Trump to have an excuse to go to the FISA court and obtain authorization to put surveillance on the Trump campaign team.  In the form in part of a couple of plants on the team.
   But hey - Whatever It Takes, eh, gang???