What does the Constitution say about Presidents being Charged?

  Did I miss at least a little on yesterday's blog? I laid it all on a Watergate-era memo -- this thought that we cannot investigate Trump because he is a sitting president. In fact, this "policy" has some basis in the Constitution.
   I do not say the Constitution says a president cannot be charged with breaking the law. I don't believe it does. But, it does say that when the Senate holds impeachment proceedings, it will only decide on removal from office, not on any other punishment.
   I don't believe the courts have made a ruling on what the Constitution says, and it is not clear what the Constitution is suggesting.
   "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy and Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
   If you just go by what the Constitution says, and don't read anything into it, it simply says in impeachment, you can remove him or her from office and prevent him or her from holding any other office, but "the party convicted" is still subject to having charges pressed against him (or her), and subject to the legal process that follows.
   It doesn't say the police can't investigate you for a crime; It doesn't say you can't be charged.
   Or, does it? "The party convicted" does have at least some implication that you have to wait for after the impeachment before any charges are brought against you.

Kings Might have such Protection, but this is America

  They trace it back to Watergate, or, that is, to the Nixon Administration -- this policy of not indicting a sitting president. The policy was created to protect Richard Nixon and it has ended up shielding Donald Trump.
   You cannot indict a sitting president? It is against policy to charge a sitting president? What?
   I guess I'm lost as to why there isn't a big outcry for doing away with this policy. It isn't even federal law. Just department policy. We don't like too much governing by executive order, and yet we put up with this? We don't even raise an eyebrow.
   Wrong is wrong. This policy has got to go. Presidents should be as answerable to the laws as are the average citizens. Laws that protect presidents make them as invulnerable as kings.
   And, that isn't suppose to be the way it works in America.

The Laws being what They are, He couldn't Charge Trump with a Crime

 "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." -- Robert Mueller
  At another point in his speech, Mueller noted the Justice Department policy does not allow it do charge a sitting president with a crime.
   And, if the law says you can't charge him with a crime, it would seem to follow you probably shouldn't even make the accusation that a crime was committed.
   The laws being what they are, they don't allow the truth.
  But, this, also from Mueller: "When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."
   That isn't alleging a crime (although it comes perilous close with that word "obstructs"), but it is a grave characterization of Trump's conduct, the same.
   And, Mueller noted that while Justice Department policy doesn't allow charging a sitting president with a crime, there is a route to justice placed right in the Constitution. Could he be referring to impeachment?
   Can we think of anything else we would be referring to?

How Does Mueller's Report Affect Our Facebook Participation?

  "Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election." -- Robert Mueller

   Would that not constitute fraud? Would that mean the Russians were in some of the memes and/or some of videos you were reading and sharing? 

   This, then, at the end of his speech, was a warning for you: "I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments -- that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."

   "Every American" would be all of us. We use the Internet. We share the memes and hit "like." Would we do so so quickly if we knew a Russian posing as an American posted the meme?

   Fraud, and you were caught in it.

   "That allegation deserves the attention of every American," Mueller said. 

  If truth brings peace, 

lies are the verbiage of war.

Dreams make their pledge to the future,

while nightmares have a pact with the past.

A hubcap is an ornament in the center of a tire
But out under the tread it is not
If we would maintain beauty, we must stay in the middle
And never under tread be caught

A hubcap knows its not a wheel
And it only looks good when its not
It's round like the tire, but can't bear the load
Without getting worn and shot

Sometimes our part is not to be the rubber
As the rubber meets the road
Sometimes our part it just to be the smile
As others carry the load

So, sit in the center and just be pretty
It's all you really have to do
The wheels that turn are bound to look better
If the face in the center looks new









Birds take flight in pleasant weather

The man in the middle 

gets ran over twice

Dreams are the comfort of nightfall.

Reason and rancor 

seldom travel together.

And, one has footsteps unburdened, 

while the other carries luggage.

When the devils 

wanted to take reason out of politics, they introduced political parties.

Parties are a way

 to take reason out of politics 

and leave only rancor.

If you take the word "politics" apart, you will find it has three words hidden within it, "pole," "I," and "tick." So, what does the word mean? "I am a tick and I run to my pole." 

  I am not a student of the history of the word "politics." I do not know the word's origin. But, I do notice the word "pole" in there and note that politics creates poles to pull the populace apart.
  I could say this more harshly. I could note the word "tick" is also in there, and the word "I." I could conclude that the meaning of politics is, "I am a tick and I run to my pole."

Who needs to think

when the party has done it for you.

 A nation's division

 begins with the spirit of party.

If you were to divide and conquer

 a nation, you could start by introducing 

political parties.

Political parties 

are a recipe for division.

Friends became Enemies when Political Parties were Introduced

  Friends became enemies when political parties were introduced.
  I wonder if there were a time when people would discuss the public issues of the day even-handidly, weighing the words of their neighbor for what they were worth.
  Then, came the introduction of political parties. Now, you no longer listened to your friend before deciding if he was right. No, your position was already decided. All you needed to know was what your party believed. Now, instead of searching for the truth, you went no further than to find out what your party believed. Instead of being open-minded, you closed you mind around the beliefs of your party.
   Parties were just a clever way of getting people to be biased.
   With parties, every thing is pre-thought for you. You don't need to do your own thinking; The party has done it for you.

Did Davy Crockett Misfire on this One?

  "We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we like in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." -- Davy Crockett
   So says a meme posted on Facebook, and I re-post it with my comment ahead of it:
   "Here's a though, but is it a true one? Could the same be said of any government spending? We have the right to give money for roads and infrastructure out of our own pockets, but for the government to make such an appropriation is robbery? Why can Congress appropriate money for one thing but not for another?
    "I would guess Davy really said this. We must wonder, then, if our current thinking cannot be traced all the way back to him. The beliefs of our icons become our own. I would suggest we ask ourselves, though, whether Davy was really right on this, and think it through on our own. It seems to me, if you can spend on roads, you can spend on the poor. To come up with some false logic saying you cannot help the poor only impedes the ability of the nation to help its poor."
 

We Should be Careful about Incursions Into Our Right to Speak Freely

   Comes a judge, Michael Kwan right here in Utah, who launches into comments ridiculing President Trump during a trial. The state's supreme court then suspends him six months for his conduct.
    I wonder on this. I wonder if as long as his comments do not impact his ability to judge, we ought to allow him his free speech. How did his opinion affect the decision before him, or affect any other decision that might come before him? I have grave doubts his negative thoughts on Trump impacted his ability to judge fairly.
  We should be cautious when we curb free speech and dissent, even when it is that of another, such as a judge, instead of our own free speech..
   One could argue that Trump's daily comments cloud his ability to act impartially. If we want an impartial president, we should limit his freedom of speech.
   I wonder how many judges have expressed opinions against presidents, even ridiculed them as Kwan did Trump. Or, how many have expressed opinions on political issues. Right now, since Trump is president -- and a controversial one at that -- you would be most likely to find comments against him, as opposed to past presidents. Has Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Trump? Should we kick her off the bench?
   I am still thinking on this issue, and on whether it shows a lack of decorum we should be concerned about. For now, I say that I am concerned when we incur into free speech, when we limit anyone's right to dissent and expression of dissent.

Fear knows

 no greater mirage than running

 from the poor and helpless.

Ever Stop to Consider What We are Protecting Ourselves Against?

  Ever stop to consider what we are protecting ourselves against?
  Protect our borders? From what? From whom? Is it the immigrant we are afraid of?
  Secure our borders? This implies that national security is at risk, that we need to secure our borders against a foreign power.
   You couldn't be referring to the immigrant could you?
   Are we kidding ourselves? Who are we protecting ourselves from when we lock down the borders?
   The poor of other nations. The starving of Honduras. The oppressed of Venezuela. Those who flee from Columbia and Guatemala in search of better lives.
   We "secure" our borders against the poor, those seeking freedom, and those who would join their family members here in America.
   These are those we "secure" our border against. These are the monsters and devils and villains in our minds. These are the enemy. Cast up a wall. Send out the National Guard. Stop the poor from coming into our land.
  Yeah, I see: We must secure our borders -- against the poor.. It is the greatest of priorities. Elect a president who will get it done.
   This is viewed as our most urgent need?
   Forgive, but I do so wonder if we haven't gone a little crazy. The urgency of locking out the poor and helpless fails to gain traction with me.
   It seems so ironic, working ourselves into a frenzy over the need to lock out the poor and oppressed. This is our nation's number-one priority? It is ironic because they come not with guns and cannons and missiles and warplanes. No. These are the poor.
   Securing our borders makes a great rallying cry. Who would oppose such a thing? Of course, every American wants to protect and secure and defend our borders.
   But, while those bandying this rallying cry of defending our borders make that cry, should we not tap them on the shoulder and point out what they are wanting to protect us against?
    Fear knows no greater mirage than running from the poor and helpless.

We Wouldn't Think of Thanking Them for Their Service

 I honor the fallen veterans. I honor the veterans who lived. I honor the veterans of long-past wars, and those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  When I meet a veteran, I most usually thank him or her for his or her service.
   But, I also honor the firefighter. I honor the police officer. I honor the teacher. I honor the farmer. I honor the farm laborer. I honor the medical worker. I honor the care-center employee.
   When I see a care center worker, I sometimes praise him or her for their service.
   Can I go back to the farm laborer? Our nation extends not enough love to its farmers. Those who provide our food basket are to be thanked and praised. And, some of the workers are immigrants -- some undocumented immigrants.
   Now, I certainly like it that we have Memorial Day, honoring those who have died in the service of our country. I would not object if we had a day honoring those in other honorable professions: Teachers, homeless-shelter workers, medical technicians, etc.
   If none other, perhaps the teacher should receive a day of honor.
   But, if we stretch deep enough into the field of honorable professions, we will reach the farm laborer. And some of them are "illegal."
   Would we loathe the thought of honoring them with a holiday? Some of us would. I will only say, they are in an honorable profession. Theirs is a service. Theirs is a heavy labor that benefits our country. They work long, hard hours at low, low pay. As much as anyone, they are the workhorses of our nation.
   And, instead of thanking them, we spurn them; We spite them.

Why Can't We have Debate without Rancor?

  I wish it could be different, this new round of debate between abortion activists and anti-abortion activists. I wish they would refrain from castigating each other, demeaning each other.
  Murderers? I am against abortion. Don't know that we should be calling abortion advocates murderers, though.
   Why can't we sit down, discuss this, and be civil? Why can't we be respectful of other opinions? Why can't we have debate without rancor?

Obstruction of Justice

   If our president says he will not work with Democrats unless they drop the investigation of him, how does that not constitute obstruction of justice?
  You are using your power as president. You are demanding that an investigation against you should cease.
  Different people will look at it differently, perhaps. But, I do not understand how they can. To me, it is blatantly obstruction of justice. Yes, I confess, it seems everyone should be able to see this. You don't look at an orange moon and say it is purple.

Of Parasites and Immigrants and Unborn Children

   Comes a meme on Facebook, three ladies sitting on the lawn, two wearing "My Body, My Choice," T-shirts, and they have a sign that says, "Parasites don't have rights."
   "When committing human rights violations oppressors always start by dehumanizing their victims."
   My reply, and I hope it offends no one:
   "I'm against abortion. Think it way wrong. There have been times when it, not immigration, has been my big issue. I see so many commonalities in the two issues. People say the unborn have no rights. They aren't human. People say the undocumented have no rights. They aren't citizens. People call the unborn parasites. What a similarity to how the immigrants are viewed and treated. The unborn are parasites? The immigrants are criminals. They have robbers and killers and such among them. It is argued that, well, they are criminals, for they come in violation of the law. That makes them criminals, by definition. And the unborn? By definition, I guess they literally are parasites, if you choose to use that term on them. I don't. 

Time Dealer Changed All Those Movies

  I was most amused at Time Dealer, who went back in time and changed every movie. Clint Eastwood and John Wayne -- he changed them all.
  They all had faulty story lines, you know. Well, story lines that were so close to okay, you thought they were okay.
  But they weren't.
  Guns cracked and someone fell dead. Time after time, and movie after movie. Now, the thing was, we were taught that these people dying were people who deserved to die. We were taught that the hero administering justice was a hero, indeed.
  None of this stuff about letting the courts decide.
  So, Time Dealer came along and altered and edited every single one of those movies. He changed them so the villain never ever got killed, but just got hauled off to jail.
   You can go ahead and argue over whether Time Dealer ought to have changed all those movies. I only know that if we didn't have so many movies teaching us to kill, and teaching us that killing can be justified, and that killing can be good . . .
   We might not have so many killings in Chicago, and St. Louis, and Washington, and New Orleans.
   If we could go back and change our ways, would we? Or would we slap the hands of Time Dealer, and tell him to leave well enough alone?

Vengeance is Mine, Saith the Movie -- And, We all Follow Suit

  What story line plays out the most these days? Death. And, not just death, but that death is justified. The hero kills the villain, and the villain deserved to die.
  So, if we are influenced by the movies we watch, what is being taught?
  That death should be administered to those who deserve to die. That there are some people who don't deserve to live. That you don't need to go to court to get justice; You can just administer your own. That you don't need the law; You can be the law.
  As ye sow -- it is said -- so shall ye reap. Look around the nation, and see what we have become.

Make the pence a penny
Make the diamond hard
You don't change by changing
Three feet into a yard

I shouted at the mountain
I laughed at the sea
I screamed at the rainbow
And the birds a flying free

This is all Monsanto's world
And it's all Monsanto's gain
It conquers mountain pass and coast line
And every drop of rain

If I'm devil enough to admit it
And devil enough to tell
I'll yell into the hurricane
As well as into the turtle's shell

I'll admit my crimes to heaven
I'll confess to those I harm
All nature is my victim
So, I press my own alarm

Sprawl across a coast line
Spread into the sea
Pesticides and death waves
All for you and me

The movies you feed off 

become the beliefs you have.

 Whence cometh John Wick 3? From what I've heard of it, it is about as violent a movie as there is. Yet it debuts as the top film in all the nation.
  Is is a reflection of our society, that it is so popular? Does it reflect our lust for violence? Does it lead us toward more violence?
  I haven't seen it. Haven't read the story line. But I wonder.
  I wonder if the killings are seen as justifiable. So often in movies, the killings that occur are. Justice is served by death being administered. This, too, is a lesson taught. This, too, is a danger to society. When we teach that some deaths are justified, when we teach that the gun is the answer, we encourage the use of the gun to administer death when we think it is deserved.
  We speak of being desensitized. We speak of being influenced by movies. What is the influence of a movie where death runs rampant, and is seen as justice? In the hearts of society, you foster the thought that there are those who deserve to die and they should be administered death. You foster the thought that if justice is to be served, it must be administered with death.
   Movies have their consequence. And, you cannot spread such influence and expect it not to follow you home. No, you might not be likely to become a killer, just from watching violent movies. But, you may become more inclined to believe in death sentence by gun rights instead of by trial in court.

An eye for evil in others 

can be a sign of wickedness 

in one's self. 

Searching for evil in others, 

reveals only the wickedness in one's self.
--

You cannot divide politics and religion. 

If both are searches for what is right, their intersections will be many. 

Searching for evil in others

displays only the wickedness 

of one's own soul.

You will know the pureness of a heart 

by the absence of foul words for others. 

You lift yourself 

to the standards you set.

You Lock Them Up Long Enough to Change Them

   You don't stir a hornet's nest. As I finish a blog just minutes ago, these words come to my mind. What do we do with those who advocate violence, and who threaten it? Do we toss them into jail for a couple years, and then see them emerge more set against us than ever?
   Do we stir the hornet's nest?
   Now, there could be an argument for keeping them in prison for ever. If they are dangerous, why would you let them go. If protecting the public from them is what you are trying to do, and they are just as dangerous after five years as they were when they entered prison, why would you let them go?
   I consider on something I advocated in the past: Instead of locking criminals up for a set time, lock them up until they repent.
   It would be a hard thing to judge -- their repentance. They would have the incentive to feign it just to be released. Still, a merit-based release makes sense . You work with the prisoner. You talk to him (or her). You persuade. You teach.
   And, when they display a change in their ways, you turn them back into society.
   You cannot lock up forever someone who expresses a terroristic threat. Sooner or later, they will have to be released. Your only hope is that you can change them before they are discharged from prison.

Do We Arrest Them if They Speak of Overthrowing America?

  Weeks ago, Gary Mills was attending a church service in the Salt Lake area and got agitated over a song being sung, and went outside, and allegedly said, "I would be ready to take up arms and bomb federal buildings,"
  The next day, police arrested Mills, hauling him off to jail for investigation of making a terroristic threat.
   Now, some people believe we should take up arms against our government. Is this a crime? Should they be arrested for verbalizing their beliefs?
   I don't know where Gary Mills was on the spectrum of those considering violence. But, it is perhaps obvious there are some who believe America is on the wrong path, and the only way to correct it is by coming to blows with the government.
   Do we jail them? Do we jail them for their beliefs?
   I believe words from a book of scripture might say something like, There is more power in the word than in the sword. I wonder but what locking a person up for a terroristic threat often only puts off the problem until he is released from prison. We should make talking them out of violence the key to our response to terroristic threats.

   If a president were under investigation, and he appointed someone to investigate the investigation in hopes of influencing the outcome . . .
   Wouldn't that be obstruction of justice?

This is about Charity, as Much as You Might not Want to Admit it

   Tonight, we shall consider the premise that immigration is all about charity. Ye may say it is about crime, about being overrun and invaded, about them taking our medicare, and about them not paying for their hospital visits.
   But -- this question of immigration -- is it really no more than a question of charity?
   Thousands pour towards the border, seeking a better life, seeking escape from the countries they are in.
   They are the poor, the poor of other nations.
   "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best." The words echo down, three or four years later. We wonder if we could tap President Trump on the shoulder, and suggest that the poor and the neglected, indeed, are seldom considered their nation's finest.
  These are the poor that come to us, not "their best."
  The president proposed his plan for immigration a day or two ago. He suggested bringing in a more-educated, more-skilled, more English-proficient immigrant.
   And that would slam the door on the immigrant of the present. No more fleeing Honduras and Venezuela and Guatemala because you are dirt poor, and lacking the skills to change that once you reach America.
   No more charity.
   Charity isn't telling a person to go hone their skills, and then they can come back and try again.
   It isn't telling them to find a way to make ends meet in their own country.
  It isn't telling them to quit imbibing on our welfare system, and on our hospitals.
  Charity comes only in helping the poor, not in turning them away.
   It does so seem to me this is about charity. It is about whether we will let in the poor of other nations, or tell them we seek not them, but those with skills, and education, and the ability to speak English.
   The door shuts on the poor, to some extent, it we agree to President Trump's new rules. 

 

When dishonesty leads the probe, 

the probe is given limits.

The face of truth has eyes that search. 

A Fourth Investigation May be Needed

  How many investigations of the investigation do we need? We've got three, and that might not be enough.
  Three. There is this one we learned about days ago, Attorney General William Barr appointing U.S. Attorney John Durham to look into the origins of the Russia investigation. And, there were two already in existence. The attorney general before Barr, Jeff Sessions, had DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz investigating possible abuses in the FISA process. And, Sessions had Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber investigating possible criminal conduct in the original investigation.
   Those investigations are apparently still underway, although Ohio Republican Representative Jim Jordan typified Durham's appointment as a change of pitchers, switching from Huber to Durham.
   But, do we need maybe one more? Investigations are best when appointed by neutral sources. Trump has a dog in the fight, and his picking the investigators leaves taint all over the process.
   Yes, the two sides of Congress are also bigoted, should you look to it to appoint an independent.. But, where else do you go? If there is to be an official investigation, perhaps it is Congress who is responsible. The checks and balances of our system of government leave it to Congress.
   A good investigation is needed. There have been charges of bias in the FBI and in the investigation process. Are the charges true? Should they be dismissed? If the charges are unfounded, that determination certainly isn't going to be made by a prosecutorial investigator appointed with a mandate of finding flaws in the original investigation, -- not if the person leading the investigation is answering to a person demanding that fault be found.
   So, a fourth investigation may be needed.
 

Tranquility is the result 

of acting one's conscience.

As the Saying Goes: This is Highly Unusual

  Blazon the headline across the top of the newspaper: "Trump's A.G. Opens Investigation of Investigation."
  Or, maybe, "Trump Says New Investigation Will Find How Hoax Started."
  This is not a small matter, Trump and his people investigating the investigation. If the Russian investigation was fraudulent, or had fraudulent beginnings, that should be big, big news. If you are calling for an investigation to find out, that is worthy of being the day's lead story.
  In the history of America, how many times have investigations been investigated? Was the Kennedy assassination's investigation investigated? Was the Watergate investigation investigated? Was the investigation of Bill Clinton investigated? Was the Congressional investigation of Hillary investigated? I don't know: How many times has a federal investigator been assigned to investigate an investigation?
  Is this unprecedented, or has it happened a few times before? If it is unprecedented, let the newspaper headline scream as much.
  But, this investigation is highly newsworthy for yet another reason: It is possible the investigator is being sent on a biased assignment. He might be being told to find the dirt, rather than to even-handedly determine if any exists.
  If you appoint the person doing the the investigation, you can seek out someone who will do your bidding. Then, when the results come back, you can simply say the investigation showed this and this and this, and suggest everyone should just accept these things as facts.
  In the history of America, has ever such a thing happened? Has ever a federal official being investigated been in position to appoint someone to investigate the investigation? Are we not a little concerned with what is happening?
   Wake up, America, to what is going on. Let me slap you upside the ear, just a little, that you might wake up.

Sometimes, Socialism and Capitalism are a Bad Mix

  If you will consider the matter, I think you will see America suffers from a very bad form of socialism.
  Make that socialism/capitalism.
  Other countries, when they want socialism, are often smart enough to just let the government run it. But, the U.S. thinks it has to mix capitalism in.
  And, socialism and capitalism are often a very harmful mix.
  Take government housing: If a private entity is brought in, it will have all the incentive in the world to qualify as many people as possible. At the government's expense.
  Take care centers. Not all of their customers are government funded, but many are. And, whenever the care center can qualify a person on government funding, it will. It has the incentive to do so.
  Take hospice. The more people who qualify, the better for the hospice provider. Once again, the large part of the money comes from the government, so the incentive is to dig as deep into government funds as you can get away with.
   Planned Parenthood? I wonder if it applies. Does it have incentive to qualify more in order to receive more from the government?
  So, I wonder if when you have a social program, you ought not be wary about letting private enterprise in. Tell me again how the incentive to make a profit is going to translate into a better program. If you have to have a better product in order to sell, private enterprise can be great. If you are competing with others, and the difference is whether you do a better job, private enterprise can be wonderful.
  But, that isn't the case with some of our government contractors. Many of them don't even have to bid on a contract. So, there is no incentive to hold prices down.
   Rather, the incentive is to get as much money out of the government as possible.
   In an age of wisdom, we have sure out-smarted ourselves on this one. All we care about is involving private enterprise. We don't stop to think about how the pieces fit together. 

If we viewed the homeless 

as an opportunity instead of a problem, 

we could make a difference. 

Our wrongs are our friends 

only when we abandon them.

A kiss is placed 

on lips that are sealed.

The house of lies fills with visitors 

as rumors are never turned away.

The house of lies is full of visitors, 

as rumors are always invited.
-

Time is lost only when it wanders. 

When it has a path, it is not. 

The house of lies 

grants no entry to the truth. 

Lies shutter closed 

the windows of truth. 

Foolishness is its own teacher.

Our forefathers didn't so much fight that their decisions should stand, but that our decisions should be allowed. 

If it took wisdom to establish freedom, 

it will take wisdom to preserve it. 

When a mirage is your dream, 

it likely won't come true.

Wisdom isn't in having an opinion, 

but in how it is arrived at. 
-

Truth is only truth when it is reason.

There is more to pride than riches; 

There is more to hate than spit.

Night remains when the eyes are shut.

Those who will not open their eyes to the truth 

will remain in the dark.

Day comes 

only to those who roll out of bed.

Silence wins many a quarrel.

Where there are rocks in road, there will always be a stumble. It is not whether you stumble, but whether you stumble on. 

With the wind, bends the willow

With the storm, falls the tree

But from the bending and falling tree stock

Remains a tree to grow tall and free

With the wind, the willow bends
With a storm, a tree does fall
But out of every bent or fallen wood stock
Are remains that grow up tall

Bigotry is the domain of those with power. 

If a person has power to harm, his bigotry becomes meaningful. 

I also wonder if there are fewer bigots among the poor and oppressed -- those with no power. When you are oppressed, you have more inclined to humility, and bigotry is nothing but a form of pride. 

We aren't practicing Christianity 

if we aren't practicing good will.

If you would come to know truth, 

you must first know goodness. 

Truth not considered 

will never be considered the truth.

Cease to dream 

and you cease to have reason to live. 

Never give an opinion before taking one, and never take an opinion without showing respect for it. 

A man on the run will fall

quicker than one who 
stands and faces the fight.

Time spent on one thing

 is lost on another.

The honest man will face the truth,

 but the dishonest cannot look it in the eye.

Wisdom isn't in having an opinion,

 but in how you arrive at it.
- 

If you would change your future,

you must accept your past.

The future flees 

those who are afraid of their past.
-

You never get better at games of chance,

they only get the better of you.

If you can only see the darkness of your past, 

you will never see the brightness of your future.

Temptation is something you fall into when 

you get too close to the depths of hell. 

The end game is only for quitters. 

Those who keep going can play forever. 

Only by allowing room for failure 

will you make room for growth.

Before you purchase a future, 

you must pay for your past. 
-

Only if there is room for failure 

will there be room for growth.

Room for growth is made 

only by making room for failure.

Those who would purchase their future 

must pay for their past.

Your values reflect 

in the toys you play with. 

A seed would never sprout if not for mud and rain. It needs to be planted in the dirt, and wait for rain to fall. Even so it is with us: The dirt and the mud and the rain of the storms are all necessary for us to grow.

A plant only grows 

by pushing through the soil. 

Hatred creates criminals 

where criminals do not exist.

Hatred is the great manufacturer of all things evil.

It manufactures lies. It manufactures discontent. It manufactures deceit. Etc.

Hatred spits in the eye of others 

even when others are clean.

Hatred finds faults that do not exist.

Hatred refuses to look truth in the eye.

Hatred requires not reason, 

but only excuse. 

Hatred requires not a reason,

 but an excuse.

The righteous become the wicked 

when looked at through a magnifying glass. 
-

Always await the sun to set 

before judging the day.

Borders are boundaries 

for those we consider not friends.

A foot race is won not by feet that sprint,

 but by a heart that pumps.

When we attempt to make friends among enemies 

we can end up with enemies in disguise.

A quick wit is sometimes 

slow to care about harm.
-

Fleeing feet 

often have no path.

Feet that fly 

often don't wait for a path.

Fancy loves its feathers.

Fancy prides in its feathers.

Fear chases every lead.

You cannot ask silence of wisdom; 

It is always its turn to talk.

No challenge is greater 

than when your faults are exposed. 

When an enemy is in the camp, 

you watch your words.

Truth suppressed in the name of freedom

 is otherwise known as oppression. 

Does freedom know correction?

Freedom without a leash

 becomes a wild dog. 

If you brow-beat the truth, 

it may drop its eyes from you.

If you brow-beat the truth, 

it may not look with favor on you.

Calm Your Populace, and Reduce the Mass Killings

  If you would calm your populace, you would reduce the mass shootings -- reduce the killings, period.
  If you would be a more gentle nation, you would not know so much violence.
  Here is a secret, perhaps: Those who kill are merely striking back. They become hurt, and they hurt in return. I say it is a secret, because we don't hear tell, when a mass murder is committed, that the assailant felt hurt, or had been offended, or that he was lashing back at society for injustices perceived.
   At least, not much of the discussion, not much of the investigation covers this.
  So, if you were to reduce all the mass shootings, what should you do?
  Calm your nation.
  Seek out those irrationally fearful, and teach them there is nothing to fear.

Here's Why the Mentally Unstable Commit so Many Mass Murders

  Among those who fear are the devils of the nation.
   Let me restate that: Among those who fear the most are those who hurt others the most. Your mass murder is often someone running from his fears.
   If you would know the mentally unstable, you would know they are often those who fear. We wonder why there are so many mentally unstable among those who commit mass murders. Perhaps it is because when a person fears, he fears harm. And, when he feels attacked, he strikes back. 
   What I'm saying, is that there are plenty of reasons to fear, even by those who are sane. But, when a person is insane, he finds more reason for fear than is normal. So, those who fear are those who kill, then since the insane finds more reason to fear, he is more inclined to kill.
   The man who chases after shadows with a gun in his hand, is likely to shoot at his ghosts. Trouble is, his fears might not be real, but the person he shoots at is.

Among Those Who Accuse, are Those Who Kill

   Those who accuse, are those who kill.
   Look at the mass murders. Are there vendettas? Of course. One of the things we investigate when we investigate crime is motive.
  And, behind every motive is an accusation.
  Not every accusation leads to a murder, obviously. But, if one person is more inclined to make accusations than is practical and normal, that can be a sign.
   If the accusations are irrational, that is a sign.
   Obviously, then, if you would reduce the amount of mass shootings, you would seek out those who make irrational accusations, and those who have irrational hatred.
   Could you persuade them to think clearly? Could you help them understand their feelings against others are not rational? I don't know. But, I know that such an effort is worthy.
   Our mental-health workers: Are they trained to quell false accusations, irrational accusations? Should we have such community workers, being dispatched to knock on doors whenever it is reported there is someone filled with irrational accusations?
 

Make Love the Assignment -- Hire Good-Will Ambassadors

  I think of all the counselors being hired, at high schools and other places, as we attempt to deal with the mass shootings. I think this might be good. But, I wonder if we could tweak their assignment. I wonder if we could have them eye-balling everyone they witnessed, spotting those who might feel a lack of love, and rushing in to offer it.
  Love. Positivity. Good will. Warmth. Encouragement. Acceptance.
  Actually, do we need to hire special people to do this? Perhaps. But, couldn't all the teachers be taught? Shouldn't they all be searching for the child that seems at risk, and jumping to assuage their fears, and rushing to offer them love?
   If you have to hire a good-will ambassador, that's fine, but it does reflect that your teachers are not already being good-will ambassadors.
   I say, hire them. Hire the good-will ambassador. Assure that that function is being met. Ensure that that need is not being overlooked. Make love someone's assignment, and the assignment will not be ignored.

 

A Nation Worked up, One against Another, Bears the Fruits of the Same

  If you were to cut down on all the mass shootings, what should you do?
  End the hate.
  I speak of politics, as much as anything -- the hatred of Democrats against Republicans and Republicans against Democrats.
  The murders among us are but a reflection of the hatred we hold for each other.
  Turn down the volume of hate, and you will turn down the number of shootings.
  If you are someone who hates Democrats or Republicans -- if your language toward them reflects that -- you might not be a mass murderer, but you are spreading the disease that contributes heavily to mass murders.
   A nation worked up, one against another, will only bear the fruits of the same. If you spread the wrath, you will reap the wrath. 

When your enemy is the poor, your target is the innocent.

   Think on what America's biggest priority has been since President Trump took office: preventing the influx of immigrants at our southern border.
   An invasion, we call it, a national emergency.
   They come from Honduras, and Guatemala and such countries, seeking a better life.
   They are the poor.
   They turn to America for relief, and are greeted not with charity, but with contempt.
   They are told they are ISIS and MS-13. They are told they are rapists and murderers.
    They are the poor. Thousands of them, pouring northward, crossing into a country that doesn't want them.
   For all the labels placed on them, they remain the poor. There may be rapists and murderers among them, but there are tens of thousands of them who are not. There are tens of thousands of them who are simply poor people from other countries, fleeing oppression, only to find it.
   We toss them in jail, calling it a detention center. Until we got in trouble for it, we separated them from family members -- just to make it hard on them. We speak of chain migration (for they come to unite with families) as if that is some sin.
   It is beneath the dignity of our nation, what we are doing. If we, ourselves, are not oppressing them (which we are), we are making enemies out of them.
   Look at the priorities of our nation. Look at the emphasis we place on this. Since President Trump took office, the biggest priority has been getting rid of them.
   The poor.
   These are our biggest enemy? We call out the national guard against them, and, if it were legal, we would engage our armies more meaningfully than we do.
   Before you pull the trigger, America, look at what is in your sights, look at who you've chosen to be your enemy -- your number-one enemy.

On this Front, America's Freedom has never been so Assaulted

   Take decision-making power from the courts, and give it to the police. Train the police to determine what "credible fear" is. If you train them in what you think it should be, you can screen out what the courts might think it is.
   The world is revolving on without much eye on this, but what is happening is, in my view, one of the most startling losses of freedom America has ever experienced. The nation's founding principles -- its very foundation -- call for the right to a court trial.
  You don't short-circuit that, and let the police decide your fate. And, you especially don't tell the police what to decide. President Trump is wanting to train the border patrol in what their decisions should be.
   There are certainly elements of a police state in what is going on. Yet, with all the other news, this is not making much of a bleep.
   And, it matters not to many. These are what are called "illegal aliens." They have no rights. They are invaders.
   This is the attitude of much of the nation. With this attitude, what is happening will not get much attention.
   But, what then if a foreign national were to come to America and allegedly commit a crime? Would we say he had no right to a court trial? Everyone should have that right. Everyone.
   But, many Americans cannot see this. They do not believe in the rights of the immigrants. They see their applying for asylum as but seeking to get through a loophole in the law.
  Oh, forgive, but our asylum laws are not "loopholes." They are the law. Those who say we are a nation of laws and cry for rule of law should keep them. This would include President Donald Trump. He should not be too big that he should not be required to abide by our laws that let immigrants in through asylum. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you break it.
   Just because you are president does not give you the right to throw away the court system and take matters into your own hands, and rule against the immigrants, and train your border agents to carry out your will..
   I believe I heard President Trump, in his recent rally, say other nations do not have court hearings for immigrants. Why should we, then?
  Because we are America. Because we believe in freedom and human rights and courts and justice. Because we believe justice should be decided by the courts, not by a king who is not exactly benevolent toward the immigrants.
  I don't know that if you looked through all the history of America, if you would find a situation as severe as this, as far as depriving people of the right to a court trial. Freedom has never been so assaulted, at least not on this front.
  Do we say that these immigrants are but getting their just desserts? Many of us will see it as that. How dangerous. When you deprive others of their rights and freedoms, wonder but what yours also someday may fall.

What is it about the Mentally Unstable that brings on the Mass Murders?

     We notice a large number of mass murders are committed by the mentally stable. If we would to stop the mentally unstable from committing the murders, we should want to know what is happening in the mentally disturbed's mind that is prompting them to commit these acts.
   If you can figure out why something is happening, you increase your odds of stopping it.
   Today, I considered on two things. One, the mentally disturbed often see themselves as noteworthy people among all those on earth. A need for fame can fan out from this.
   But, it is the other thing about the mentally unstable that I thought on all day. This first one I mention only occurred to me as I sat down to write. Who knows but what this other factor isn't the bigger one.
   It is human nature for us -- all of us -- to take possibilities and wonder if they are realities. This tendency is even more pronounced in the unstable. They live in fear. They are, as we would say, people who see shadows and run from them. This is perhaps not all true of all the disturbed, but of many of them.
  They assume evil of more people. They see more people as evil.
   And, they are quicker to assume someone is doing them wrong, quicker to take offense.
   Now, it is the nature of all of us to strike back when we are attacked. Verbally or physically, if someone strikes at us, we strike back.
   So, if more of the unstable see themselves as being under attack, there will be more of them striking back. Therefore, more of them will be committing mass murders.
   I said there were two things, and I have discussed them, but there is a third. The unstable are less inclined to a guilt complex. They are creating their own realities, and do not need to live with the reality that they are doing anything wrong. Thus, they are quicker to justify murder.
   Perhaps a fourth thing about them, is they are harder to turn around once they get started down a path. They sometimes don't repent as easily. They are less inclined to reason. They don't need to. They have their realities and those realities often only stand because they don't stop and think the matter through. There is some of this in the greater part of all people. They get stuck in their beliefs and refuse to consider the truth. In the unstable, this characteristic is is at least as pronounced, if not more.
 

Feeling heartsick. Don't feel like blogging tonight.

We try to make heroes of ourselves by making heels of others.

A mind made up is more of a wall than one of brick and stone.

The heights of heaven are reached only by passing through the depths of humility.

Temptation only finds the lost.

That which you grip too tightly always slips away.

Give fear a life of its own and it will capture the life of most anyone.

Truth is defeated only when it is silenced..

If we dance with our fears, they will spin us away.

Nothing is so heavy as the weight of defeat, and no one so strong as the person who can bear it.

The fears we entertain become the realities we live.

A giant is born only when littleness is outgrown.

The fool insists he's always right, while the wise yields to reason.

Wisdom is only the student; It is foolishness that teaches the course.

Truth's only danger is that you may not you may not be prepared to hear it.

Hatred must command one heart before it can kill another.

History makes notes the present won't read.

Birds fly not in sullen skies, but wait the storm to pass.

Fear flees the storm, but finds no refuge.

When hate rules, it plays not by the rules.

The silencing of fears comes only through the whispering of hope.

When every picture is a self-portrait, you're in the gallery of pride.

If you let the mistakes of your past color your future, the painting will be the same.

The voices we listen to are the masters who rule us.

Words formed in a storm only do harm.

When in the house of friends, truth doesn't need to knock.

Truth grows weary when it has no friends.

Truth wins only when hearts are true.

Rumors are a fool's wisdom.

When the student betters the teacher, the lesson has been well taught.

You become ripe for the slaughter when your blood runs with fear.

Fear calls for retreat, while hope surges forward.

When you roll the dice, you often tumble.

Love always becomes the giant in the room.

Pride seeks the humility of others.

When words of welcome are empty, they soon fill up with hate.

Fear locks its doors, but ghosts enter still.

Gentle Words might go Further than an Arrest

 We think of the Parkland shooter, Nikolaus Cruz, and of how he had made threats, suggesting he liked to see people in pain, and would like to shoot up the school.
  And we wonder he wasn't cut off at the pass, so to speak. We think he should have been arrested for his threats, so that the violence would never have occurred.
   Fast forward to the Salt Lake City area, to just last week, where Gary Mills was attending a church service and got agitated over a song being sung, and went outside, and another church-goer followed him.
  "I would be ready to take up arms and bomb federal buildings," Mills reportedly told the person who followed him out.
   A day later, police arrested Mills, hauling him off to jail for investigation of making a terroristic threat.
   Little doubt that the desire to cut a might-be terrorist off at the pass was at least part of the reasoning for arresting Mills.
   Was it the right move?
   I think of human nature, of how when we are attacked, we counter attack. We are like cornered dogs, and we bite most when we are cornered.
   Mills might be released. Or, he might go to court. Let's say he is convicted. If so, someday he will be back out. Maybe the arrest will shake him, humble him, prompt him to change his ways.
   Maybe.
   But, maybe the tendency to dig in and fight back -- also a human nature -- will kick in. Maybe, he only becomes more of a threat.
   I think of the new laws that have sprung up since the Parkland shooting. I have not time to study them now, but believe some of them call for treatment and intervention rather than placement in jail. I wonder if this is the better path. I do not know how much counseling police provided Mills, or whether that was considered outside what police should do.
   But, I think it the right path to take. You show love. You talk kindly. You tell the person his threats are wrong, but you do it gently, lovingly.
   We can dismiss what Mills said as an idle and meaningless threat. Perhaps it was. We can say he should have free speech, and arresting him for expressing it is wrong. I will wonder.
   But, the one thing you certainly should do, is to intervene. You talk to him. You try to talk him a different direction. Just like catching a person about to jump off a bridge, and commit suicide, you talk. The concept is the same and the principle no different. You use gentle, calming, reasoning words.
   The man might still jump off the bridge, true. And, we don't know what will become of Gary Mills. Idle talk that doesn't even need correction? Perhaps. But, perhaps a gentle talking to would thwart a mass killing.
  Who knows.

Storms rage only in

 climes that will have them.

Mercy doesn't man the border

with a sword.

Freedom leaves 

when it doesn't let others in. 

The man of mercy doesn't

 man the border with a sword.

The storm doesn't settle

 in a clime not its own. 

Words find friendship 

only when they are kind.

A giant is born only

 when youth is outgrown.

A giant is born only

 when the follies of youth are spent.

A giant is born only 

when littleness is outgrown.

A giant is born only 

when he leaves littleness behind. 

A giant is born 

only when he grows beyond littleness. 

When words of welcome are empty,

 they soon fill up with hate. 

Service knows no stranger.

First words out 

are sometimes all that's heard.

Testimony has its tears.

Lost sheep don't seek a shepherd 

but follow him when found.

Love and mercy don't send straight to jail.

Mercy doesn't welcome with a sword.

The man of mercy 

doesn't greet at the border with a sword.

Ships are only built 

when seas are needing sailed.

We owe what we become 

to the challenges we face.

The values of a man 

are reflected in the toys he plays with. 

A fool's friends must join in the foolishment. 

Wisdom finds partners in those who disagree,

while foolishness allows no friendship 

with those who argue.

Wisdom's partners include those who disagree,

while the friends of the foolish must never argue. 

Pride has not patience with those who disagree. 

Pride flatters only its own. 

Pride seeks not the truth,

but the telling of its own lies. 

Wisdom sees its wrongs, 

while pride is always right. 

Wisdom knows its own foolishness. 

The foolish suppose they are always right.

The wise know their foolishness.

Fools see only their wisdom.

The foolish insist on being right,

while the wise yield to reason.

The foolish insist they are right,

while the wise concede they may be wrong.

Wisdom knows its weakness,

While foolishness is full of itself.

The fool believes he can do no wrong,

while the wise knows his error.

The foolish think they are always right, 

while those of wisdom know better.

Would Community Immigration only Lead to More Division?

  If the fear is that they would overburden us, overwhelm us, overpopulate us, then it is the communities that should decide whether they should come.
  Too many people for our schools? Would they come faster than we coul build new roads? What do we mean when we say that if we just open the borders we would be overwhelmed?
   This much seems true: It is largely at the community level that the overburdening would occur. If no one moved into Sioux Falls, South Dakota, then Sioux Falls would not be impacted. But, if a large number of them moved into Biloxi, Mississippi, then it would be Biloxi that would face that challenge.
   I do not know the politics of Biloxi, to know whether they favor or oppose greater immigration, but I know there are cities where the populace might be friendly towards more open immigration, cities that would let them in..
   We could look among the sanctuary cities, and surely find a number.
   Here is the question, then: If it is the cities that are impacted, and if some of them favor more immigration, who are we to tell them no?  If picking your friends is a liberty, ought not the communities be allowed to pick who they will have among them? If San Francisco says it wants these people to live there, why should the rest of the country be allowed to put a stop to it? San Francisco must  deal with the impact, so it should be that city's decision.
   By this line of thinking.
   There is an exception to this rule, and it is significant enough: When they come, they sometimes receive welfare, and that means tax dollars are used that come from everyone, nationwide.
   But, most every other impact comes at the community level.
   So, perhaps communities should be given self-determination. Local control, some argue, is better than control from Washington. Does this test our belief in that principle?
   Suffice to say that those in San Francisco ought to be allowed to determine how they will live their lives, free from too much dictating from Washington.
   Now, if we did allow cities and communities to make their own determination on whether to have immigrants, it would create a new concept. Shall we call it, restricted-movement Americans?  You would be free to live in San Francisco and such cities as would have you, but you could not move freely upon the face of the land.. Whether you were granted a partial citizenship, or just classed as a resident, you would be what might come to be called a restricted-movement American.
   Such a concept. In America? Something tells me the courts possibly might become involved, and they would extend your right to move about more freely..
   One negative to this idea of community immigration, is that it might further divide our nation. Those of us opposed to increased immigration might remain opposed, and only grow further irritated as more immigrants come.
   Communities will be divided. Not all people within a city will feel the same. The city might accede to letting in more immigrants, but not all the residents will agree.
   Cities 10 miles away might take offense to having immigrants right next door.. They might argue that while the sanctuary city is building its own new roads and infrastructure, the new population is impacting theirs by pouring daily into the regional malls and such.
   I think of our Civil War, and of how, leading up to it, there were free states and slave states. I think of how this division led to one of the greatest wars in history. Community immigration could lead to the exact same division. You would have immigrant communities and non-immigrant cities.


 

 The right to pick our friends: 

Never was this considered a freedom, yet it is among the most precious of all.

The child remaining in a man once he has grown determines the adult he becomes.

The child in a man forges the adult he becomes.

Life reflects the toys you play with.

Trust follows the path of friendship.

Diamonds on display 

draw eyes that may carry them away.

Diamonds carried about are often lost.

Diamonds bragged about run their risk

Heroes count not their points.

Immigration? Let the Communities Decide

  Why not let individual communities decide the question of immigration? I mean, think of it: The reason we do not let more immigrants in, is because we fear they will over-burden our schools and our welfare and our hospitals.
  So, why not let the communities decide when those thresholds are being broached? If a community thinks it can handle 50,000 immigrants, why not let them come. It is the community that has to deal with the effects of that immigration. If Gaters Haven, Mississippi, says it is cool with 50,000 immigrants, then let it make that decision. Why should the people in Boston care? The people in Boston are not being affected. It is Gators Haven that has to deal with it.
  Go ahead, limit the immigrants from being allowed to move to communities that don't want them. If they move, they can only move to other communities that are also willing to accept them.