Use the form on the right to contact us.
You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.
PO Box 3201
Martinsville, VA 24115
United States
Stephen H. Provost is an author of paranormal adventures and historical non-fiction. “Memortality” is his debut novel on Pace Press, set for release Feb. 1, 2017.
An editor and columnist with more than 30 years of experience as a journalist, he has written on subjects as diverse as history, religion, politics and language and has served as an editor for fiction and non-fiction projects. His book “Fresno Growing Up,” a history of Fresno, California, during the postwar years, is available on Craven Street Books. His next non-fiction work, “Highway 99: The History of California’s Main Street,” is scheduled for release in June.
For the past two years, the editor has served as managing editor for an award-winning weekly, The Cambrian, and is also a columnist for The Tribune in San Luis Obispo.
He lives on the California coast with his wife, stepson and cats Tyrion Fluffybutt and Allie Twinkletail.
Ruminations and provocations.
Filtering by Tag: Lindsey Graham
Comparisons of Republicans to Nazis have been popular in some quarters, and I’m going to make one here. But it’s not a moral comparison, it’s a tactical one. Republicans are doing the same thing Hitler did when he took over one European state after another — after pledging not to — and British leader Neville Chamberlain let him do it. Instead of satisfying him, it made him more aggressive.
Read MoreGraham truly believes there are only two choices: Irrelevance or a brown-nosing, boot-licking buy in. Brown apparently never heard of (or doesn’t agree with) the concept of standing up for yourself when you’re in the minority. He probably has no clue what got into the heads of people like Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis — people who stood up for their ideals even though they weren’t in power.
Read MoreDonald Trump is a spoiled billionaire who uses others to get what he wants, regardless of their skin color. That’s what he means by “winning”: getting his way. Not helping his constituents win. Not improving the nation. Not helping the Republican Party. Simply getting what HE wants — even at everyone else’s expense. ESPECIALLY then, because if he’s the only one left standing, there’s no one left to challenge him. He’ll destroy everyone else to secure complete and total control.
Read MoreTrump’s idea of unity is that everyone else should conform to his wishes, and if they don’t want to, he’ll force them to do so. But more than half the nation doesn’t agree with this concept, and that’s what has brought us to where we are today: An unyielding chief executive, backed by a minority of followers who hold political power on the one hand, and the rest of us, who are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore.
Read More
The accusation is simple and direct: Donald Trump, in his role as president, held up military aid to Ukraine – which had already been approved by Congress – “asking” that the nation first commit to investigating Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden, and Biden’s son. Republicans’ arguments against impeachment, by contrast, have been all over the map. If they can’t seem to settle on one, it may be because they’re all so flimsy. I decided to address each in turn, exposing each for the fallacy it is.
Actually, there was. Trump’s own words (“I want you to do me a favor, though”) linked military aid to a preconditioned investigation of the Bidens, along with a conspiracy theory involving the 2016 election. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, that the money was held up in part because of Trump’s demand for an investigation into 2016. When a reporter pointed out that “what you just described is a quid pro quo,” Mulvaney responded: “We do that all the time in foreign policy.” He later tried to retract that statement, but it was already out there.
“Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” – Mulvaney
On the contrary, most commentators can’t remember a president ever withholding taxpayer funds in exchange for an investigation into a political opponent.
The Democrats are taking depositions behind closed doors, and not allowing Republicans to know what’s happening.
Except that 1) Republicans were present for the depositions, which were subsequently released in their entirety and 2) public hearings are being held. Predictably, this argument was largely abandoned about the time the public hearings were announced.
Then they did. And they abandoned this argument, too.
Never mind the law that protects whistle4blowers from being identified.
“I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn’t allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid.” – S.C. Sen. Lindsey Graham
This, despite the fact that the substance of the whistleblower’s statement has been affirmed by several other sources.
NFL referees are literal whistleblowers. They’re relatively anonymous; fans tend to focus on the players, unless the refs make a mistake. As with politics, those fans are inherently biased in favor of their own teams. But imagine the following scenario:
A referee makes a call against the home team. The coach is unhappy with it, and decides to challenge it. This triggers a video review of the play, based on a number of camera angles. Each of these angles, however, clearly affirms that the referee’s call was correct. But the fans aren’t satisfied. Even after the game is over, they keep calling for the referee to be brought forward in publicly questioned about why he made the call. And the coach, unwilling to admit his own mistake in calling the wrong play, encourages them. Never mind the video evidence. It doesn’t matter. What matters is publicly shaming the referee for making the proper call.
This is what the Republicans want to do with the whistleblower. If the NFL were in charge of the impeachment hearings, such an action would result in nothing – except that the coach would get a hefty fine for questioning the officiating. But Donald Trump has poisoned the water by smearing the officials (career diplomats and other civil servants) as “Deep State Never-Trumpers,” that even the most absurd arguments seem credible to his fans, who are all too willing to blame the ref.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and other Republicans have suggested that the president has this right, based on the Sixth Amendment. There’s just one problem with this rationale: The amendment makes clear that it applies to “all criminal prosecutions.” And impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.
Trump himself said this. But it isn’t an argument, it’s a threat thinly disguised as a prediction. It’s also not the only time he’s used this tactic: He also warned that the economy will tank if he isn’t re-elected.
“You’re going to impeach a president for asking a favor that didn’t happen – and giving money and it wasn’t withheld?” – Nikki Haley
Yes, the same way we indict people for attempted murder that wasn’t successful and attempted bribes that weren’t accepted.
“What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.” – Graham
Graham seems to be suggesting that negligence is just fine. But people go to jail for negligent manslaughter all the time. Graham’s a lawyer; he should know this. How many Ukrainian soldiers died because Trump held up aid to that nation? Even if it were “only” negligent, the cost was counted in human lives.
The argument has been made that “it’s too close to the election” to impeach a president. But this ignores one important point: The crux of the accusation is that Trump was trying to interfere in that election. If he’s not checked now, who’s to say he won’t do so again?
Trump “honestly believes that there may have been corruption in Ukraine, and before he turns over $400 million of American taxpayer money, he’s entitled to ask.” – La. Sen. John Kennedy
“Asking” about corruption is quite different than insisting that a country investigate alleged corruption as a condition for receiving money. Alleged corruption on the part of a political opponent. Alleged corruption that had already been debunked. For money that had already been appropriated by Congress.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t feel pressure to comply with Trump’s request. He said so himself!
But if Zelensky didn’t feel pressured, why was he preparing to comply? Out of the goodness of his heart?
Ask a shop owner who’s paying money to a mobster in a protection racket whether he feels pressured. He’ll tell you that, of course, he does not. Because if he admits it, his “benefactor” will withdraw his protection. In withholding military aid, that’s exactly what Trump was doing. It should be pointed out that a traditional protection racket is different, in that the “protection” is from the mob’s own “enforcers.” But the result is the same.
And it’s not as though Trump hasn’t made veiled threats to those supposedly under his protection, such as Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, who was removed from her post by Trump. In a conversation with Zelensky, Trump called her “bad news” and saying, in vague but ominous terns that “she’s going to go through some things.”
“I believe it was inappropriate, I do not believe it was impeachable.” – Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry
Wrong. One of two explicit grounds for impeachment named in the Constitution is bribery (the other being treason). Offering something of value in exchange for dirt on a political opponent is bribery. Threatening to withhold it is extortion.
Even Trump doesn’t like this argument, calling it a “fool’s trap,” but for a different reason: He maintains the phone call was “perfect.”
This is Trump’s favorite argument, because he sees himself as perfect.
But even most Republicans won’t go this far. Perhaps because it comes from an egotist who has made more than 14,000 false and misleading statements since taking office. Still, Trump appears to actually believe this one. That’s even more troubling when one considers this quote from Chinonye J. Chidolue: “Perfection is a lie, and lying to others is explicable, but lying to oneself is the highest form of deceit.”
Trump seems to be doing both.
Dear Senator Graham,
I’m going to put this to you directly: What does Mr. Trump have on you?
I’ve been watching politics a long time. It’s a game in which opportunists routinely “adjust” their positions to catch latest updraft in public opinion. The man you tried to convict and remove from office two decades ago was famous for it. Governing by polls, they called it.
But we’re not talking about your run-of-the-mill Clintonian flip-flop here. We’re talking about a 180-degree turnabout in your opinion of a man he called a “race-baiting xenophobic bigot” and a “kook not fit to be president” just four years ago. Today, you’re one of his most avid supporters. This isn’t a flip-flop; it’s as a transformation that would make any good chameleon green enough with envy to stand out in the greenest rainforest.
A Washington Post story claimed you’d provided some answers to this question: You wanted to “be relevant” and declared, “If you don’t want to get re-elected, you’re in the wrong business.”
I’d say the more appropriate answer is, “If you don’t want to serve the people and the nation’s highest good, you’re in the wrong business.” And that’s what you’ve always said you were doing. You positioned yourself as a person of conscience and, whether or not people agreed with your conclusions, you crafted something of a reputation for following that conscience.
Until now.
So, I’m sorry, but I don’t buy your explanation that this is simply a case of political pandering in an attempt to be re-elected. That kind of explanation that would work in explaining your typical, everyday political about-face, but this is something else. Plenty of other legislators fell in lockstep behind the “race-baiting xenophobic bigot,” but they were not the kind of people who boasted of working across the aisle and speaking with an independent voice. You were.
Take your colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, for an example. He did an about-face on Trump, too – even after Trump threatened to “spill the beans” on his wife (whatever that meant) and smeared his father without justification. But let me point out two important distinctions: First, Mr. Cruz never had the reputation for integrity you cultivated and, second, his support of Trump hasn’t been nearly as public and vocal as yours has been.
I know you’re not a big fan of Senator Cruz: You once likened a choice between him and Mr. Trump in these terms: “It’s like being shot or poisoned.” So, in deference to that statement, I’ll choose a few other examples to illustrate my point: Your conversion regarding Mr. Trump isn’t politics as usual, it’s bizarre, even by Washington’s standards.
It’s tempting to say that, now that Trump’s in office, that you were, in fact, poisoned. But I suspect this poison emanates from within. Here’s why:
I invite you, Senator Graham, to think of your colleagues who have earned reputations as people of conscience. Imagine if Bernie Sanders repudiated democratic socialism and became a Republican. Or Rand Paul started speaking out in favor of foreign intervention and tax increases. Imagine if the late Senator John McCain had started decided to oppose all campaign finance reform. These are men who, it’s clear, have held to their beliefs regardless of which way the political winds were blowing, and you depicted yourself as one of their number. If any of them did what I’ve just described, they would be labeled the biggest hypocrites in Washington.
But now, I’m afraid you’ve got that title all to yourself.
What you said about Trump being a “race-baiting xenophobic bigot” could have just as easily been said about David Duke. You know, the former KKK grand wizard. It was unequivocal. If you were wrong about it, you owe Mr. Trump the most abject of public apologies. If you were right, you owe that same apology to the American people. But since Mr. Trump doesn’t believe in apologies, and you are now one of his unapologetic disciples, I don’t expect you’ll issue one – even to him.
I’m even less optimistic you’ll offer one to the American people, and at this point, it doesn’t really matter, because that reputation you built as a “man of conscience” is pretty much toast. If your mysterious about-face regarding Mr. Trump hadn’t incinerated it, your willingness to stand by while he threw your supposed friend, Senator McCain, under the bus most certainly would have. Friends don’t act like that; assholes do.
So, I’ll ask you again: What does Mr. Trump have on you? Think carefully before you answer, because if you say, “nothing,” there’s only one real alternative: That you were never a person of conscience in the first place, and it was all just a brazen act from the beginning. That would make you the worst kind of political troll. Worse than Clinton or Cruz or even Trump himself, because Trump – while a shameless con man – never pretended to be a man of conscience. You did.
That leaves us with two possibilities: First, that you are a true man of conscience who’s been undone by something so dark and despicable that you forsook that conscience and hitched yourself to Trump’s amoral bandwagon. I’m not talking about your rumored-and-denied homosexuality; that’s no longer (thankfully) the political or social liability it once was, even among Republicans.
This would have to be a whole lot more damaging than that. It would have to be downright humiliating. I have no idea what this sword of Damocles might be, and perhaps it doesn’t even exist. But if it doesn’t, we’re left with only one other option: that you never a man of conscience in the first place. That you’re an even bigger huckster than the “Art of the Deal” guy himself, and that your entire, well-cultivated image was nothing but a fraud from the outset.
Those are your choices. Think hard and choose wisely. I’ll be waiting for your answer – not that I ever expect to get it.
