Wisdom asks every question,
while foolishness only rushes to answers.
Friday, January 31, 2020
We Should Take to the Streets in Protest
America should be in outrage. I would that protests would break out tomorrow, but rather guess they won't. We are a nation that should not allow its leaders to do this. A trial without witnesses? A trial decided not by justice, but by whether there are more Republicans than Democrats? We should take to our feet, march and protest, and demand justice in our land.
There has never been a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses. So, this is a new low, even for Congress, which hardly is a bastion for impartial trials.
Protest? Should we? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
There has never been a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses. So, this is a new low, even for Congress, which hardly is a bastion for impartial trials.
Protest? Should we? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Clean the Swamp; Clear out Those Who Protect the Corruption
Clean the swamp? I don't know that there could be more corruption than what the Republicans are doing. A wrongful person has his friends, and they vote to protect the corruption of one of their own. They vote that there shall be no witnesses against him. Can a swamp be more of a swamp? Hope the voters clear it out in November.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Make America good, again, and the great will take care of itself
Make America good, again, and the great will take care of itself. Care for the poor who come across the borders, instead of turning them away. The huddled masses yearning to be free? In a past day of goodness and greatness, America was more accepting. Welcome them, for it you would be good, this is part of it.
There are other barometers of whether America is good. Sufficient to say, the immigration issue -- alone -- goes a long way toward reflecting the good of a nation. What do the scriptures say? They list all the things you might be doing, but say if you have not charity, you are nothing.
If you turn out the needy as they come to you from abroad, if you do not provide adequate and fully humane treatment for children (and adults) in the detention centers, if you do not provide enough courts so their hearings can be heard without backlogging them into the detention centers, if you do not provide them justice when justice is suppose to be what America is all about . . . these are not reflections of a good society.
There are other barometers of whether America is good. Sufficient to say, the immigration issue -- alone -- goes a long way toward reflecting the good of a nation. What do the scriptures say? They list all the things you might be doing, but say if you have not charity, you are nothing.
If you turn out the needy as they come to you from abroad, if you do not provide adequate and fully humane treatment for children (and adults) in the detention centers, if you do not provide enough courts so their hearings can be heard without backlogging them into the detention centers, if you do not provide them justice when justice is suppose to be what America is all about . . . these are not reflections of a good society.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Why did We Drift from the Model Used in Trials All Across America?
America came into this trial arguing about how to go about it. What would be the rules?
And, what would be so wrong with using the format used in trials all across the nation? A typical trial includes:
(1.) Choosing a jury
(2.) Opening statements
(3.) The testimony of witnesses and cross-examination
(4.) Closing arguments
(5.) Jury instruction
(6.) Jury deliberation and the rendering of a verdict
Drifting from the model used in trials all across America has resulted in opportunities for partisan efforts to take over the proceedings. And, it has dramatically decreased the chance that we will see justice.
And, what would be so wrong with using the format used in trials all across the nation? A typical trial includes:
(1.) Choosing a jury
(2.) Opening statements
(3.) The testimony of witnesses and cross-examination
(4.) Closing arguments
(5.) Jury instruction
(6.) Jury deliberation and the rendering of a verdict
Drifting from the model used in trials all across America has resulted in opportunities for partisan efforts to take over the proceedings. And, it has dramatically decreased the chance that we will see justice.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Does Bolton's Book Specify Trump was Going After Political Foes?
If we have it established that President Trump withheld money to pressure Ukraine to go after Joe Biden, that is powerful. But, from what I am reading of John Bolton's revelation, he is suggesting the money was withheld in order to go after political opponents.
That means, not just Joe Biden as a person. That is one thing. No, but Joe Biden because he is a political opponent.
That means, not just Joe Biden as a person. That is one thing. No, but Joe Biden because he is a political opponent.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Bolton's Testimony Pretty Much Convicts Our President
My day washes out of time before I have chance to read up on John Bolton's revelation. But, I marvel at the news. From the Associated Press: "President Donald Trump told his national security adviser he wanted to maintain a freeze on military assistance to Ukraine until it aided political investigations into his rivals, according to a report in The New York Times on Sunday."
Just trying to sell a book? Still, he said it. It is his witness. If you are a true court, you call him up and have him testify.
If the book were to come out in time, or if Bolton would release the direct quote from the book in advance, you could just enter that into the trial.
It does so seem to me, Bolton's testimony pretty much convicts our president.
Just trying to sell a book? Still, he said it. It is his witness. If you are a true court, you call him up and have him testify.
If the book were to come out in time, or if Bolton would release the direct quote from the book in advance, you could just enter that into the trial.
It does so seem to me, Bolton's testimony pretty much convicts our president.
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Shut Down the Impeachment and Bring it Back being Done Right
If we saw any trial in America being filled with a biased jury, if we saw any trial where the accused was running the trial, we would shut it down and come back with a fair trial.
Now, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is beyond such efforts? We are quite alright with what is going on?
Then -- if we are not -- shut it down. Shut it down long enough to straighten it up and bring it back right.
If we were to do this, we would have to figure out the best we could how to provide an impartial jury. With most every Democrat lining up for impeachment, and most every Republican lining up against it, we should surely see the need to try to clear the partisanship out.
I don't know that you can bring in jurors from outside the Senate. The Constitution says the Senate is solely responsible for the trial. That means, keep it in-house, it would seem.
But, the Constitution also says the Supreme Court justice shall preside. How do judges in all other courts across the nation preside? Don't they ensure fair juries? We should task Justice Roberts with interviewing all the senators, or with submitting questionnaires to them to screen out those who will be partial.
I would suggest he ask them if they have ever made any statement, or said or written anything saying they were partial. McConnell would be out.
What if they have not gone so far as to confess they will be partial, but have indicated they likely will vote one way or the other? I would ask them why. What made you make that statement? If it is the evidence, itself, allow them on the jury. The case has been before the public -- and the facts, as well -- and it is normal that a person would have an opinion after studying it.
Ask them all if they can be impartial. Straight out ask them if they can set aside the influence of their political party to render justice. Make them sign an oath that they will do so. Mention party politics, specifically, and make them sign a statement saying they will leave party alliances behind in the interest of securing justice.
Make them sign a statement saying that although they already are aware of many of the facts, they will set aside the inclinations they have built up and listen and consider the facts anew -- as if they are hearing everything for the very first time.
Now, if that is to happen, you probably will need to allow witnesses. If they are going to consider things with a fresh minds, they need to hear the evidence as if they are hearing it for the first time. You don't ask them to back up and consider everything anew if you are leaving them with no more than memories still hanging on to biases.
We need a fair trial. It is important. Our integrity must be upheld. This is about as important of a trial as we will ever have. Our desire -- demand -- for justice must be met.
Now, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is beyond such efforts? We are quite alright with what is going on?
Then -- if we are not -- shut it down. Shut it down long enough to straighten it up and bring it back right.
If we were to do this, we would have to figure out the best we could how to provide an impartial jury. With most every Democrat lining up for impeachment, and most every Republican lining up against it, we should surely see the need to try to clear the partisanship out.
I don't know that you can bring in jurors from outside the Senate. The Constitution says the Senate is solely responsible for the trial. That means, keep it in-house, it would seem.
But, the Constitution also says the Supreme Court justice shall preside. How do judges in all other courts across the nation preside? Don't they ensure fair juries? We should task Justice Roberts with interviewing all the senators, or with submitting questionnaires to them to screen out those who will be partial.
I would suggest he ask them if they have ever made any statement, or said or written anything saying they were partial. McConnell would be out.
What if they have not gone so far as to confess they will be partial, but have indicated they likely will vote one way or the other? I would ask them why. What made you make that statement? If it is the evidence, itself, allow them on the jury. The case has been before the public -- and the facts, as well -- and it is normal that a person would have an opinion after studying it.
Ask them all if they can be impartial. Straight out ask them if they can set aside the influence of their political party to render justice. Make them sign an oath that they will do so. Mention party politics, specifically, and make them sign a statement saying they will leave party alliances behind in the interest of securing justice.
Make them sign a statement saying that although they already are aware of many of the facts, they will set aside the inclinations they have built up and listen and consider the facts anew -- as if they are hearing everything for the very first time.
Now, if that is to happen, you probably will need to allow witnesses. If they are going to consider things with a fresh minds, they need to hear the evidence as if they are hearing it for the first time. You don't ask them to back up and consider everything anew if you are leaving them with no more than memories still hanging on to biases.
We need a fair trial. It is important. Our integrity must be upheld. This is about as important of a trial as we will ever have. Our desire -- demand -- for justice must be met.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
America isn't Ready for Ranked-Choice Voting
I have tended to like ranked-choice voting. Tonight, I question it. With as many candidates as there are, by the time you account for all the races, it is all you can do to keep up with just a part of the action.
Voting needs to be made simpler, not more difficult. Ranked-choice voting requires you not only to come up with one candidate you like, but to know them all.
Whatever we do to better our system needs start with making it more inviting to learn about the candidates. First things being first, first get us to the point where we are enjoying learning about the candidates, and where we are learning about the candidates.
Then, we can think of ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice won't work until people know the candidates well enough to rank them.
Voting needs to be made simpler, not more difficult. Ranked-choice voting requires you not only to come up with one candidate you like, but to know them all.
Whatever we do to better our system needs start with making it more inviting to learn about the candidates. First things being first, first get us to the point where we are enjoying learning about the candidates, and where we are learning about the candidates.
Then, we can think of ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice won't work until people know the candidates well enough to rank them.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Justice is never justice
when the jury cares not for the facts
Justice is never justice when the jury cares not for the facts. We must look at the Senate impeachment trial, and wonder if either side thinks the facts are relevant. The Republicans will vote to acquit, and the Democrats will vote to remove the president from office.
No matter the facts.
Facts might matter to truth. But they don't matter to an America divided by politics.
Justice is never justice when facts just get in the way. If the Senate will not allow witnesses, what does that tell us?
The vote will go down along party lines. Facts will have little to do with it. We won't determine what is right or wrong. We'll just verify that there are more Republicans than Democrats.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
A Half a Dozen Ways the Impeachment Trial doesn't Follow the Constitution
Ways in which the Senate's impeachment trial is at odds with what is called for in the Constitution:
(1.) The Constitution mandates that there shall be an impartial jury. Yes, some senators have said they are not impartial. That's one thing. But, do not let it go unnoticed that the division along party lines of those who favor or disfavor impeachment sends clear notice the jury is not impartial.
(2.) The Constitution calls for the accused to be, "confronted with the witnesses against him." This implies the accused -- in this case, the president, himself -- should be present.
(3.) The Constitution requires that witnesses be allowed. It doesn't put a limit on how many. "Witnesses against him" would be all those who have evidence against him.
(5.) The Constitution calls for the House to be "sole" in its proceedings and for the Senate to be "sole" in its. Yet, the House has tried to set rules for the Senate, and Senate officers have pressured House leaders.
(6.) The Constitution says the Supreme Court justice shall preside. If we take this to mean he shall preside in the same sense as a judge presides in all other courts across America, who should be making the call on whether witnesses will be allowed, and on what the rules will be?
(1.) The Constitution mandates that there shall be an impartial jury. Yes, some senators have said they are not impartial. That's one thing. But, do not let it go unnoticed that the division along party lines of those who favor or disfavor impeachment sends clear notice the jury is not impartial.
(2.) The Constitution calls for the accused to be, "confronted with the witnesses against him." This implies the accused -- in this case, the president, himself -- should be present.
(3.) The Constitution requires that witnesses be allowed. It doesn't put a limit on how many. "Witnesses against him" would be all those who have evidence against him.
(5.) The Constitution calls for the House to be "sole" in its proceedings and for the Senate to be "sole" in its. Yet, the House has tried to set rules for the Senate, and Senate officers have pressured House leaders.
(6.) The Constitution says the Supreme Court justice shall preside. If we take this to mean he shall preside in the same sense as a judge presides in all other courts across America, who should be making the call on whether witnesses will be allowed, and on what the rules will be?
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
We Teach the Children to Hate
Teach children to despise the Democrats, or the Republicans -- teach him that only one party is right and the other is wicked -- and you teach them not to be open-minded. Politics are handed down from generation-to-generation, filled with hate and bias.
We do not teach our children to be open-minded. They might be free to decide for themselves, but only after we have poisoned their minds with hate.
We do not teach our children to be open-minded. They might be free to decide for themselves, but only after we have poisoned their minds with hate.
House and Senate Proceedings Should be Independent of Each Other
I still believe the House and the Senate should stick to their own, and not interfere with the other's part of the impeachment.
The House, "shall have sole Power of Impeachment," says the Constitution. And, then, a little later is says that, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
That may sound confusing. Both are to have sole power? How can that be? The only logical explanation I can see is that they are to be sole and independent of the other. How else does it make sense?
In all the things we are doing wrong with this impeachment, this is one.
\
The House, "shall have sole Power of Impeachment," says the Constitution. And, then, a little later is says that, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
That may sound confusing. Both are to have sole power? How can that be? The only logical explanation I can see is that they are to be sole and independent of the other. How else does it make sense?
In all the things we are doing wrong with this impeachment, this is one.
\
Impartiality Picks a Side When a Side is Right
Truth is not always equally divided. We say, There are two sides to every story, but that doesn't mean both sides equally contain the truth. Both sides can claim the truth, but usually only one side has it.
You can say, Both are wrong. As the old Buffalo Springfield song said, "Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong."
I guess I think that is a cop-out. It is a stab at being fair, and it tries for impartiality. But, real impartiality is in considering all things, and then letting the verdict fall where it will, even if it falls all on one side.
Impartiality doesn't divide the truth, and doesn't waste it. It doesn't cut through the middle just so it can say it is in the middle. Impartiality picks a side when a side is right.
You can say, Both are wrong. As the old Buffalo Springfield song said, "Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong."
I guess I think that is a cop-out. It is a stab at being fair, and it tries for impartiality. But, real impartiality is in considering all things, and then letting the verdict fall where it will, even if it falls all on one side.
Impartiality doesn't divide the truth, and doesn't waste it. It doesn't cut through the middle just so it can say it is in the middle. Impartiality picks a side when a side is right.
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
A Nation that Quickly Buys into a Lie
Nations enveloped by politics never see beyond them. They search not so much for truth, but for the honor of their party. Everything of the other party, is wicked. Everything of their own party, is pure. They search not for right and wrong, but for the wrong of the other party.
This does not mean they never see the truth. But, they only see the truths their own party presents. And, they twist into falsehoods any of the truths the other party possesses. The nation, itself, becomes a nation not focused on the truth -- not focused on finding the truth -- but on believing the lies about the other party. The nation, then, runs the danger of becoming a nation that follows lies, a nation given to lies, and a nation that quickly buys into a lie.
And, such a nation is the United States of America.
This does not mean they never see the truth. But, they only see the truths their own party presents. And, they twist into falsehoods any of the truths the other party possesses. The nation, itself, becomes a nation not focused on the truth -- not focused on finding the truth -- but on believing the lies about the other party. The nation, then, runs the danger of becoming a nation that follows lies, a nation given to lies, and a nation that quickly buys into a lie.
And, such a nation is the United States of America.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Trump's is a Law Team for the Ages
Kenneth Starr, he famed for the Starr Investigation of Bill Clinton; Robert Ray, who succeeded him as special counsel; Alan Dershowitz, the high-powered lawyer who defended O.J. Simpson; Pam Bondi, a frequent Fox News guest; Pat Cipollone; Jay Sekulow; Jane Raskin . . .
I don't know how they would rank among the most high-octane defense teams of all time, but it is certainly an all-star team for the ages that Trump has assembled.
Now, we wait to see if the Republicans will leave it to this bevy of lawyers who are well-known for performing under the lights. How much of the arguing will come from them?
On one side, the Democrats, with less polish and pizazz. On the other side? The best that money can buy. It would seem there is little question as to which side has the advantage in persuasive skills.
I don't know how they would rank among the most high-octane defense teams of all time, but it is certainly an all-star team for the ages that Trump has assembled.
Now, we wait to see if the Republicans will leave it to this bevy of lawyers who are well-known for performing under the lights. How much of the arguing will come from them?
On one side, the Democrats, with less polish and pizazz. On the other side? The best that money can buy. It would seem there is little question as to which side has the advantage in persuasive skills.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
An Evidence of the Truth of the Holy Scriptures
There might be evidence of truth of the Bible found in Genesis 22:18. "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."
It is not wrong to consider on this. Whether the Bible is true is a worthy question for society. Among all the social issues we contemplate, this too should be considered.
I try to think of ways the world has been blessed by the House of Israel. I think of the scriptures, and of how they were written by those who were of the House of Israel. This prophecy was written in the very first book of the Bible. The fulfillment came later. The books of the Bible were not collected together and placed into a book we call the Bible and disseminated to all the earth until much later.
We might also consider that the Book of Mormon, which some believe in, and which is considered scripture by those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a record written by and about those of the House of Israel.
From early time, some record of God's word has been made available to us through the House of Israel. There were scattered books even before the Bible was drawn together into a book. And, in America? They brought with them from the old lands what is called the Brass Plates, which contained parts of what is now called the Old Testament. I do not know if it was disseminated among the early Book of Mormon people, but if it was not, they did have the teachings and beliefs of those of the House of Israel.
This, too, is a fulfillment of Genesis 22:18. The beliefs and teachings of Christianity, itself, came through the House of Israel. I think back on Christ, and of how he once said he was not sent but to the House of Israel, and I wonder if part of the reason is that the Lord's gospel was to come through the House of Israel. If it had gone to the gentiles too early, they would have been as much of a source for this blessing as was the House of Israel. God knows his ways, and he makes a way for the fulfilling of all his words.
It is not wrong to consider on this. Whether the Bible is true is a worthy question for society. Among all the social issues we contemplate, this too should be considered.
I try to think of ways the world has been blessed by the House of Israel. I think of the scriptures, and of how they were written by those who were of the House of Israel. This prophecy was written in the very first book of the Bible. The fulfillment came later. The books of the Bible were not collected together and placed into a book we call the Bible and disseminated to all the earth until much later.
We might also consider that the Book of Mormon, which some believe in, and which is considered scripture by those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a record written by and about those of the House of Israel.
From early time, some record of God's word has been made available to us through the House of Israel. There were scattered books even before the Bible was drawn together into a book. And, in America? They brought with them from the old lands what is called the Brass Plates, which contained parts of what is now called the Old Testament. I do not know if it was disseminated among the early Book of Mormon people, but if it was not, they did have the teachings and beliefs of those of the House of Israel.
This, too, is a fulfillment of Genesis 22:18. The beliefs and teachings of Christianity, itself, came through the House of Israel. I think back on Christ, and of how he once said he was not sent but to the House of Israel, and I wonder if part of the reason is that the Lord's gospel was to come through the House of Israel. If it had gone to the gentiles too early, they would have been as much of a source for this blessing as was the House of Israel. God knows his ways, and he makes a way for the fulfilling of all his words.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Does Trump Even have a Single Witness Who can Say He didn't do it?
Are there any witnesses of Trump's innocence in the impeachment trial? Any, at all? Do any even exist? A witness for Trump would be one who was in position to know if the president was passing messages to Ukrainian officials and what the nature of those messages were and whether money was being withheld in exchange. A witness would be someone who could say, I was in position to know if any such act was committed, and there wasn't any such thing. If the president had dangled money in front of the Ukrainians -- if he had used his office this way -- I would have known. I'm here to tell you, it didn't happen.
Secretaries of state, ambassadors, chiefs of staff, national security officers -- these are your people who know what is going on. Is there a one among all the crowd of them who can honestly say, This is all news to me. A never heard word one about it?
Will Rudy Giuliani please come forward and testify under oath that he knew of no such arrangement?
We must recall the words of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and wonder. "Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he said. If everyone was in the loop, then that leaves no one who can testify that they hadn't heard anything about it.
No witness in Trump's favor, at all? No one has stepped forward yet.
Consider this: When Trump asks for witnesses, he wants someone like Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden has no inside knowledge on what communications there were between the president and Ukraine. Why do you call on someone to be a witness when clearly they are not a witness?
The Republicans are crying bloody murder that none of their witnesses were allowed to testify in the House case. Truth be told, from what I understand, Pelosi desired for any person in position to know, to testify.
No, that didn't include Hunter Biden. But, take anyone in the know, and Nancy would have been willing to put them on the stand.
Republicans refused to allow such people to take the stand. They blocked them. Trump instructed them not to testify.
And, then he cries that he wasn't allowed witnesses.
Secretaries of state, ambassadors, chiefs of staff, national security officers -- these are your people who know what is going on. Is there a one among all the crowd of them who can honestly say, This is all news to me. A never heard word one about it?
Will Rudy Giuliani please come forward and testify under oath that he knew of no such arrangement?
We must recall the words of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and wonder. "Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he said. If everyone was in the loop, then that leaves no one who can testify that they hadn't heard anything about it.
No witness in Trump's favor, at all? No one has stepped forward yet.
Consider this: When Trump asks for witnesses, he wants someone like Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden has no inside knowledge on what communications there were between the president and Ukraine. Why do you call on someone to be a witness when clearly they are not a witness?
The Republicans are crying bloody murder that none of their witnesses were allowed to testify in the House case. Truth be told, from what I understand, Pelosi desired for any person in position to know, to testify.
No, that didn't include Hunter Biden. But, take anyone in the know, and Nancy would have been willing to put them on the stand.
Republicans refused to allow such people to take the stand. They blocked them. Trump instructed them not to testify.
And, then he cries that he wasn't allowed witnesses.
Friday, January 17, 2020
We Would be Aghast at a Trial Like This in Our Neighborhood
I wonder at our nation, and what is becoming of it. I wonder that we should have a trial of this magnitude, stripped on the principles of justice that we demand and expect in all other trials. We would be totally aghast to learn that a trial in our neighborhood was not going to allow witnesses, and was going to be conducted by those who had pledged to be biased, and that those conducting the trial had said they were going to take their lead from the defendant and do whatever he wanted.
This, in America? At the top level of our government?
This, in America? At the top level of our government?
They Want the Same Model that was Used for Bill Clinton
Republicans have been arguing that we should follow the model used in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1999.
Do not let it go unnoticed that the Senate acquitted Clinton -- and that the voting was largely along partisan lines. The Republicans are not aiming for a trial that produces justice, but one that produces partisan results.
Do not let it go unnoticed that the Senate acquitted Clinton -- and that the voting was largely along partisan lines. The Republicans are not aiming for a trial that produces justice, but one that produces partisan results.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Should We Ensure Only Senators Who can be Impartial are Seated?
Should one of the most important of all trials allow a biased jury to be seated? A Facebook friend posts, saying the Democratic presidential candidates running against President Trump should not be allowed. Comes the reply from her readers: What of Mitch McConnell, he who has even pledged to not to be impartial?
One of her readers says, "Sorry Angie, but the Constitution states that the jury in a trial like this is made up of US Senators, regardless of whether they are running for President or not. . . . What the Constitution says is what it says."
He makes a good point. The Constitution says trying the impeachment shall be the sole power of the Senate. It does not, however, specify whether all senators shall qualify to vote (although we can see how this might be assumed). Did they have political parties back when the Constitution was written? The bias and partiality might not have been foreseen.
Having an impartial jury is important. Probably every other trial setting in America strives to seat an impartial jury. Why should we abandon that principle of justice here? Could the Senate set its own rules for who can participate? The Constitution gives it power to try the impeachment, but if it is the Senate, itself, limiting the jury, that would still be within the Constitution, wouldn't it? Or, could the chief justice rule on who is impartial? The Constitution says he will preside over the trial. In trials all across America, do not the judges ensure that impartial juries are seated?
One of her readers says, "Sorry Angie, but the Constitution states that the jury in a trial like this is made up of US Senators, regardless of whether they are running for President or not. . . . What the Constitution says is what it says."
He makes a good point. The Constitution says trying the impeachment shall be the sole power of the Senate. It does not, however, specify whether all senators shall qualify to vote (although we can see how this might be assumed). Did they have political parties back when the Constitution was written? The bias and partiality might not have been foreseen.
Having an impartial jury is important. Probably every other trial setting in America strives to seat an impartial jury. Why should we abandon that principle of justice here? Could the Senate set its own rules for who can participate? The Constitution gives it power to try the impeachment, but if it is the Senate, itself, limiting the jury, that would still be within the Constitution, wouldn't it? Or, could the chief justice rule on who is impartial? The Constitution says he will preside over the trial. In trials all across America, do not the judges ensure that impartial juries are seated?
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
If the Chief Justice shall Preside, aren't These His Decisions?
It does so seem to me, we haven't been doing these impeachment trials correctly. Perhaps, we should let the chief justice fill the role judges normally have in courts all across America.
The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside over the Senate trial. "Order in the court. The honorable Chief Justice John Roberts is presiding." What does that mean? In courts all across America, when judges preside, what does it mean?
For quite some time, we have been hearing how Mitch McConnell might not allow witnesses. We have been wondering what the rules will be. Doesn't the judge in a trial make these decisions?
Perhaps we should reflect on what judges normally do in America, and allow Chief Justice Roberts to -- indeed -- preside over the trial. The senators are the jurors; They are not the judge.
The Constitution says the chief justice shall preside over the Senate trial. "Order in the court. The honorable Chief Justice John Roberts is presiding." What does that mean? In courts all across America, when judges preside, what does it mean?
For quite some time, we have been hearing how Mitch McConnell might not allow witnesses. We have been wondering what the rules will be. Doesn't the judge in a trial make these decisions?
Perhaps we should reflect on what judges normally do in America, and allow Chief Justice Roberts to -- indeed -- preside over the trial. The senators are the jurors; They are not the judge.
'Sole' Means House, Senate are to be Independent in Their Duties
I was always perplexed when I read in the Constitution how the House "shall have sole Power of Impeachment," and then to read just a little bit later that, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
I came to understand, though, that the House is more of the investigative body, while the Senate is the body where the actual trial is to take place.
Today, I believe I came to understand the importance of the words, "sole Power." What could it mean, that each has "sole power"? Sole means independent. If you have sole power, you are independent of other entities.
Strung throughout the Constitution are checks and balances. I am somewhat certain, then, of what the Founding Fathers were seeking to do when they used the word, "sole." And, what they intended, is not what is happening.
The House should be independent of the Senate, and the Senate independent of the House. The House is to be left do its thing without the Senate sticking its head in, and then the Senate to do its thing, without the House sticking its head in.
I admire Speaker Pelosi for holding back the Articles of Impeachment in order to pressure the Senate to allow witnesses. Should any trial in America ever not have witnesses? That is not right. It is corrupt. It goes against everything truth and justice stands for.
Yes, it is un-American, and violates the Constitution.
But, if the founders said the House and Senate are each to be "sole" in their duties, Nancy should surely leave the Senate to do its own thing. She is out of line in trying to tell the Senate how to run its trial. She is surely right, if she is suggesting what the Senate plans is unconstitutional, for the Sixth Amendment says trials shall be by impartial juries and shall have witnesses who confront the accused.
But Pelosi -- unwittingly and unintentionally -- is also breaking the Constitution. In a Constitution that has checks and balances, she should not be telling the Senate what to do.
I came to understand, though, that the House is more of the investigative body, while the Senate is the body where the actual trial is to take place.
Today, I believe I came to understand the importance of the words, "sole Power." What could it mean, that each has "sole power"? Sole means independent. If you have sole power, you are independent of other entities.
Strung throughout the Constitution are checks and balances. I am somewhat certain, then, of what the Founding Fathers were seeking to do when they used the word, "sole." And, what they intended, is not what is happening.
The House should be independent of the Senate, and the Senate independent of the House. The House is to be left do its thing without the Senate sticking its head in, and then the Senate to do its thing, without the House sticking its head in.
I admire Speaker Pelosi for holding back the Articles of Impeachment in order to pressure the Senate to allow witnesses. Should any trial in America ever not have witnesses? That is not right. It is corrupt. It goes against everything truth and justice stands for.
Yes, it is un-American, and violates the Constitution.
But, if the founders said the House and Senate are each to be "sole" in their duties, Nancy should surely leave the Senate to do its own thing. She is out of line in trying to tell the Senate how to run its trial. She is surely right, if she is suggesting what the Senate plans is unconstitutional, for the Sixth Amendment says trials shall be by impartial juries and shall have witnesses who confront the accused.
But Pelosi -- unwittingly and unintentionally -- is also breaking the Constitution. In a Constitution that has checks and balances, she should not be telling the Senate what to do.
The Senate Must Provide a Meaningful Trial
When you investigate a crime, you speak to the witnesses in position to know if a crime has been committed. There is nothing in the process that says once you have spoken to them, they need not proceed on to the trial and actually testify. What kind of jurisprudence would that be?
The House has done its investigation. It has spoken to a number of the witnesses -- though it did miss some very key ones -- and gathered evidence against President Trump. Now it remains for the Senate to call those and the other pertinent witnesses and put on an honest trial. Despite what Fox News and others are saying, a trial should be held -- an honest one, a real one, a meaningful one.
To let the accused call the shots for his own trial? Has this ever been done? And, in a trial such as this, have witnesses ever been denied? John Bolton and every other pertinent witness should be called on.
The House has done its investigation. It has spoken to a number of the witnesses -- though it did miss some very key ones -- and gathered evidence against President Trump. Now it remains for the Senate to call those and the other pertinent witnesses and put on an honest trial. Despite what Fox News and others are saying, a trial should be held -- an honest one, a real one, a meaningful one.
To let the accused call the shots for his own trial? Has this ever been done? And, in a trial such as this, have witnesses ever been denied? John Bolton and every other pertinent witness should be called on.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Pravda-USA and Shades of the Soviet Union in America
Pravda-USA. Give it consideration. Are there likenesses in the USA to what there was in the Soviet Union back in the days of the Cold War?
Fox is like unto Pravda? All I ask it that you be open-minded enough to consider what I say.
First, I think back a few years, to Utah politics, and of how the Republican party would not allow candidates who did not subscribe to the official line of the party -- requiring them right down the line, issue after issue, to adhere to the party line. At, the time, it reminded me of the Soviet Union, and of how you needed to believe the same as the state party -- no room for a difference of opinion. The party dictated what you must believe. Yes, I respect the thought that ideologies are what parties are all about, but people should be able to take their opinions to the party and persuade others to believe as they do. People should be dictating what the party believes, not the other way around. The party shouldn't dictate what the people believe, and blackball them for having opinions of dissent. There is a way it is done in America, and there is a way it was done in the Soviet Union.
No, the party should not dictate to the people what they believe. They people should dictate to the party. It is done one way in Russia, and another way in the USA.
Tonight, as I watched the lines run across the screen on Fox, I was -- well -- shocked. "Dismiss the madness," it read. The idea being propagandized was that there is no substance to the charges against Trump -- its all trumped up charges against Trump, I guess. If I remember correctly, the Laura Ingraham program regarded the impeachment process as simply an act of hatred by the Democrats.
I was aghast. First, these are not groundless charges. And, second, if they are, then you have a trial, and you prove your point in that trial. If they are groundless, what are you afraid of? Hold a good, honest trial the way America has always done. John Bolton? He is ready to testify? If you want the truth, if you are going to go about a trial the way America and the free world normally does, of course he becomes a witness. Freedom has it no other way. It would be corrupt government, alone, that would block him from testifying.
Pravda-USA? I cannot but reflect on the day Pravda propagandized for the Soviet government. I think back on the day Fox News was launched in 1996, and wonder if we realized it would come to this. We are told not to believe the main media. We are directed to what amounts to the state media. We are told not to even listen to the main media. Lies is all we will get, if we do. I think of the meaning of Pravda -- "the truth" -- and reflect on how it is the same, today, here in the USA today. We are instructed there is no truth in the mainstream media, and that if we want the truth, we have to go to the right-wing sources and block out the rest. Fox News is about as close to a state-ran news source as we have ever had, and we are directed to them.
I do not know how we have arrived at this point. I do not know whether Russia has influenced us to become somewhat like the Soviet Union of old, or whether we have arrived at this point on our own.
But, what a day in the history of America, that we have arrived at this point. And the people? They do not even consider on these things. They do not even consider the likenesses to the old Soviet Union. They would in a minute laugh off what I say.
Oh, it seems there was something on Fox saying the Democrats are returning to their silly ways of speaking of Russian influence. I wasn't listening, just reading the lines as they ran across the bottom of the screen. Yes, dismiss it all as silliness. Laugh it all off. Say it is crazy.
Did they influence our 2016 election? Did they try? Listen to the state media, if you like, for it will certainly dismiss it all.
Has Russia ever tried to turn us into a country like their own? All I can say, is if you look at it objectively, yes, we are more along the lines of the Soviet Union of old than we have ever been.
And, it shocks me. And, it shocks me to see the people can't see it. While you are sleeping, America, what has happened?
Fox is like unto Pravda? All I ask it that you be open-minded enough to consider what I say.
First, I think back a few years, to Utah politics, and of how the Republican party would not allow candidates who did not subscribe to the official line of the party -- requiring them right down the line, issue after issue, to adhere to the party line. At, the time, it reminded me of the Soviet Union, and of how you needed to believe the same as the state party -- no room for a difference of opinion. The party dictated what you must believe. Yes, I respect the thought that ideologies are what parties are all about, but people should be able to take their opinions to the party and persuade others to believe as they do. People should be dictating what the party believes, not the other way around. The party shouldn't dictate what the people believe, and blackball them for having opinions of dissent. There is a way it is done in America, and there is a way it was done in the Soviet Union.
No, the party should not dictate to the people what they believe. They people should dictate to the party. It is done one way in Russia, and another way in the USA.
Tonight, as I watched the lines run across the screen on Fox, I was -- well -- shocked. "Dismiss the madness," it read. The idea being propagandized was that there is no substance to the charges against Trump -- its all trumped up charges against Trump, I guess. If I remember correctly, the Laura Ingraham program regarded the impeachment process as simply an act of hatred by the Democrats.
I was aghast. First, these are not groundless charges. And, second, if they are, then you have a trial, and you prove your point in that trial. If they are groundless, what are you afraid of? Hold a good, honest trial the way America has always done. John Bolton? He is ready to testify? If you want the truth, if you are going to go about a trial the way America and the free world normally does, of course he becomes a witness. Freedom has it no other way. It would be corrupt government, alone, that would block him from testifying.
Pravda-USA? I cannot but reflect on the day Pravda propagandized for the Soviet government. I think back on the day Fox News was launched in 1996, and wonder if we realized it would come to this. We are told not to believe the main media. We are directed to what amounts to the state media. We are told not to even listen to the main media. Lies is all we will get, if we do. I think of the meaning of Pravda -- "the truth" -- and reflect on how it is the same, today, here in the USA today. We are instructed there is no truth in the mainstream media, and that if we want the truth, we have to go to the right-wing sources and block out the rest. Fox News is about as close to a state-ran news source as we have ever had, and we are directed to them.
I do not know how we have arrived at this point. I do not know whether Russia has influenced us to become somewhat like the Soviet Union of old, or whether we have arrived at this point on our own.
But, what a day in the history of America, that we have arrived at this point. And the people? They do not even consider on these things. They do not even consider the likenesses to the old Soviet Union. They would in a minute laugh off what I say.
Oh, it seems there was something on Fox saying the Democrats are returning to their silly ways of speaking of Russian influence. I wasn't listening, just reading the lines as they ran across the bottom of the screen. Yes, dismiss it all as silliness. Laugh it all off. Say it is crazy.
Did they influence our 2016 election? Did they try? Listen to the state media, if you like, for it will certainly dismiss it all.
Has Russia ever tried to turn us into a country like their own? All I can say, is if you look at it objectively, yes, we are more along the lines of the Soviet Union of old than we have ever been.
And, it shocks me. And, it shocks me to see the people can't see it. While you are sleeping, America, what has happened?
Monday, January 13, 2020
Led by Our President, Our Beliefs have become Those of a Tabloid
I will call it, "Tabloid Justice," and lay much of our belief in at the feet of President Trump. We have become a nation that believes in Tabloid Justice, and that is in no small part thanks to our president. I wonder what is becoming of America, and how it is sinking in so many ways under this president.
Tabloid Justice is one. (I capitalize the two-word phrase to draw importance to what is happening.)
I think back to when he was running for president and he referenced a National Enquirer story suggesting Ted Cruz's father was involved with John F. Kennedy's assassin.
We take a story from the National Enquirer, and we believe it? We take a tabloid, and believe its accusations?
Tabloid Justice, then.
Since the election of Trump, our belief in unworthy rumors . . . has it increased? He campaigned with a cat-cry of "Lock her up, Lock her up, Lock her up." What was the evidence against Hillary? What is the evidence? All the inquiries. All the hearings. She has become one of the most investigated, examined, and hated people in U.S. history. Yet, none of the accusations have been found to warrant formal charges. None have stuck.
Tabloid Justice would convict her, yes. And, that is all the justice our president requires. No more evidence than what a tabloid can offer, and we should, "Lock her up."
We were already beat into a frenzy on this one. Hillary was under attack long before Trump came along. No less credence than that of House hearings led by Utah's own U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz fanned the flames.
This past week, an investigation into Hillary that the president himself started found nothing against her worth pursuing.
Nothing.
Tabloid accusations remain, but the investigation for the Justice Department by the U.S. Attorney for Utah, John Huber, has found nothing, and the investigation appears to be near end.
Tabloid Justice would have it different. Tabloid Justice would convict her. The chant of, "Lock her up, Lock her up, Lock her up," echoes much louder than the results of Huber's investigation. And, we believe it. We believe the tabloid accusations against Hillary more than we believe the results of an official investigation.
Tabloid Justice is all we ask for. Have our standards dropped since the election of Trump? Yes, we were susceptible to the sway of rumors before President Trump arrived. But, when he was elected and took up the goblet and raised it high? With the leader of all Republicans and the very leader of our nation, itself, now leading the charge? We have become a nation of Tabloid Justice, a nation where rumors are convictions.
May I add, Trump once led the charge of those who believe President Obama was born in Kenya. Many of you believe it. What is the evidence? None of it rises above what a tabloid would offer.
With the election of Donald J. Trump, we have become a nation of Tabloid Justice. We wonder what harm he is doing? We wonder if he is corrupting our nation? I would suggest a shallow form of justice is corruption. When rumors are hailed as truth, the nation that believes them is corrupt.
With a president who peddles in Tabloid Justice, comes a nation that believes in it. And, the beliefs of a nation become those of a tabloid.
Tabloid Justice is one. (I capitalize the two-word phrase to draw importance to what is happening.)
I think back to when he was running for president and he referenced a National Enquirer story suggesting Ted Cruz's father was involved with John F. Kennedy's assassin.
We take a story from the National Enquirer, and we believe it? We take a tabloid, and believe its accusations?
Tabloid Justice, then.
Since the election of Trump, our belief in unworthy rumors . . . has it increased? He campaigned with a cat-cry of "Lock her up, Lock her up, Lock her up." What was the evidence against Hillary? What is the evidence? All the inquiries. All the hearings. She has become one of the most investigated, examined, and hated people in U.S. history. Yet, none of the accusations have been found to warrant formal charges. None have stuck.
Tabloid Justice would convict her, yes. And, that is all the justice our president requires. No more evidence than what a tabloid can offer, and we should, "Lock her up."
We were already beat into a frenzy on this one. Hillary was under attack long before Trump came along. No less credence than that of House hearings led by Utah's own U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz fanned the flames.
This past week, an investigation into Hillary that the president himself started found nothing against her worth pursuing.
Nothing.
Tabloid accusations remain, but the investigation for the Justice Department by the U.S. Attorney for Utah, John Huber, has found nothing, and the investigation appears to be near end.
Tabloid Justice would have it different. Tabloid Justice would convict her. The chant of, "Lock her up, Lock her up, Lock her up," echoes much louder than the results of Huber's investigation. And, we believe it. We believe the tabloid accusations against Hillary more than we believe the results of an official investigation.
Tabloid Justice is all we ask for. Have our standards dropped since the election of Trump? Yes, we were susceptible to the sway of rumors before President Trump arrived. But, when he was elected and took up the goblet and raised it high? With the leader of all Republicans and the very leader of our nation, itself, now leading the charge? We have become a nation of Tabloid Justice, a nation where rumors are convictions.
May I add, Trump once led the charge of those who believe President Obama was born in Kenya. Many of you believe it. What is the evidence? None of it rises above what a tabloid would offer.
With the election of Donald J. Trump, we have become a nation of Tabloid Justice. We wonder what harm he is doing? We wonder if he is corrupting our nation? I would suggest a shallow form of justice is corruption. When rumors are hailed as truth, the nation that believes them is corrupt.
With a president who peddles in Tabloid Justice, comes a nation that believes in it. And, the beliefs of a nation become those of a tabloid.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
And the Judge Declared the Clintons Guilty of all the Murders
"We are here for the trial of Hillary and Bill Clinton," the judge said. They are accused of murder in the deaths of multiple people. Now, when I say multiple people, that is an understatement. Hillary, will you please come to the witness stand?"
Hillary Clinton took the witness stand, and the judge continued, "Hillary, how many people did you kill?"
"None, sir. I'm aghast that you should even suggest I did."
"Well," the judge said, "then how many are you accused of killing? Surely your lawyer has told you how many deaths you are responsible for."
Hillary sighed. "Sir, I thought I read somewhere that the count is over 50, but it might still be in the 30s. Sir, I didn't kill a one of them. Bill didn't kill a one of them. Will you just believe me?"
"Not even!" the judge yelled back. He began to shake, his face tightening with a look of rage. "I cannot believe you would even suggest such a miscarriage of justice! I just cavalierly drop the charges? Is that what you want? No, not while there is a stack of evidence against you that reaches the moon." He gathered himself together, calming down, and then said, "Shall we proceed?"
The court room was quiet.
"James McDougal. He was a Whitewater partner. He died of an apparent heart attack, while he was in solitary confinement. I need not remind you that he was a key witness in the Ken Starr investigation. There, then! There is the evidence! I am finding you guilty of the death of James McDougal!"
He slammed down his gavel.
"Mary Mahoney. She is a former White House intern. She was murdered -- did you hear me say that? Murdered! -- at a Starbucks. The murder -- I repeat, murder -- happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment while in the White House. What more evidence do we need?"
He brought down his gavel, again, and pronounced the Clintons guilty.
"Vince Foster. Now, Hillary, listen: Foster was a White House counselor for your husband. He was your own colleague at a law firm. He died of a gunshot wound to the head. Can you see the connection, and why I know your are guilty? It has been ruled a suicide, but do I believe that? I know you were behind it! You are not hiding anything from me, nor are you going to get away with what you have done."
He crushed down his gavel, yet again. "Guilty, guilty, guilty," he said.
The judge then sighed. "I grow tired of taking these one at a time. I'm just going to find you guilty of them all. I know you did it. I know you did them all. There is no question. Guilty, guilty, guilty, and guilty, guilty, guilty."
He began pounding his gavel, and did not stop. Each time he brought down his gavel, he pronounced, "Guilty." He kept on gaveling and pronouncing guilt long into the night. And, when morning came, he could be found, his head resting on the table, and the gavel on the floor where it had fallen from his hand. "Guilty, guilty, guilty," he mumbled.
Then, he raised his head. "Oh, and I am going to find you guilty of one more death, that of Jeffrey Epstein." The judge then fell out of his chair trying to reach down to pick up his gavel. Sprawled on the floor, he reached for the gavel and brought it down one more time. "Guilty a million times over, for the death of Jeffrey Epstein," he pronounced.
The paramedics arrived shortly later, and found him dead. Alex Jones, Fox News, and numerous others then called for an investigation to determine whether the Clintons had killed him.
Blogger's Note: Despite what I have just written, I do not completely rule out that the Clintons might have been involved in a few of the deaths. I doubt they were, yes, but I do not rule it out. A number of these deaths were not from natural causes. Wisdom -- to me -- is considering all the possibilities but jumping too quickly to none. To assume they killed anyone of these people is a jump in reason, and that is the mark of delusion. But, delusion also closes doors when there is not enough evidence those doors should be shut. I perhaps have not studied enough on each case, that I should be fully confident they were not murders by the Clintons. That is a terrible accusation, though -- to suggest the Clintons killed anyone -- and we should hold the accusations against the Clintons unless there is solid evidence they committed the murders. I do know news agencies have investigated these deaths, and they have found no evidence.
Hillary Clinton took the witness stand, and the judge continued, "Hillary, how many people did you kill?"
"None, sir. I'm aghast that you should even suggest I did."
"Well," the judge said, "then how many are you accused of killing? Surely your lawyer has told you how many deaths you are responsible for."
Hillary sighed. "Sir, I thought I read somewhere that the count is over 50, but it might still be in the 30s. Sir, I didn't kill a one of them. Bill didn't kill a one of them. Will you just believe me?"
"Not even!" the judge yelled back. He began to shake, his face tightening with a look of rage. "I cannot believe you would even suggest such a miscarriage of justice! I just cavalierly drop the charges? Is that what you want? No, not while there is a stack of evidence against you that reaches the moon." He gathered himself together, calming down, and then said, "Shall we proceed?"
The court room was quiet.
"James McDougal. He was a Whitewater partner. He died of an apparent heart attack, while he was in solitary confinement. I need not remind you that he was a key witness in the Ken Starr investigation. There, then! There is the evidence! I am finding you guilty of the death of James McDougal!"
He slammed down his gavel.
"Mary Mahoney. She is a former White House intern. She was murdered -- did you hear me say that? Murdered! -- at a Starbucks. The murder -- I repeat, murder -- happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment while in the White House. What more evidence do we need?"
He brought down his gavel, again, and pronounced the Clintons guilty.
"Vince Foster. Now, Hillary, listen: Foster was a White House counselor for your husband. He was your own colleague at a law firm. He died of a gunshot wound to the head. Can you see the connection, and why I know your are guilty? It has been ruled a suicide, but do I believe that? I know you were behind it! You are not hiding anything from me, nor are you going to get away with what you have done."
He crushed down his gavel, yet again. "Guilty, guilty, guilty," he said.
The judge then sighed. "I grow tired of taking these one at a time. I'm just going to find you guilty of them all. I know you did it. I know you did them all. There is no question. Guilty, guilty, guilty, and guilty, guilty, guilty."
He began pounding his gavel, and did not stop. Each time he brought down his gavel, he pronounced, "Guilty." He kept on gaveling and pronouncing guilt long into the night. And, when morning came, he could be found, his head resting on the table, and the gavel on the floor where it had fallen from his hand. "Guilty, guilty, guilty," he mumbled.
Then, he raised his head. "Oh, and I am going to find you guilty of one more death, that of Jeffrey Epstein." The judge then fell out of his chair trying to reach down to pick up his gavel. Sprawled on the floor, he reached for the gavel and brought it down one more time. "Guilty a million times over, for the death of Jeffrey Epstein," he pronounced.
The paramedics arrived shortly later, and found him dead. Alex Jones, Fox News, and numerous others then called for an investigation to determine whether the Clintons had killed him.
Blogger's Note: Despite what I have just written, I do not completely rule out that the Clintons might have been involved in a few of the deaths. I doubt they were, yes, but I do not rule it out. A number of these deaths were not from natural causes. Wisdom -- to me -- is considering all the possibilities but jumping too quickly to none. To assume they killed anyone of these people is a jump in reason, and that is the mark of delusion. But, delusion also closes doors when there is not enough evidence those doors should be shut. I perhaps have not studied enough on each case, that I should be fully confident they were not murders by the Clintons. That is a terrible accusation, though -- to suggest the Clintons killed anyone -- and we should hold the accusations against the Clintons unless there is solid evidence they committed the murders. I do know news agencies have investigated these deaths, and they have found no evidence.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
The Thought Processes Might have Led to Dismissing Hillary News
As I consider on why a winding-down DOJ investigation basically clearing Hillary Clinton made little news, I think I perhaps see the answer.
Now, news clearing Hillary would seem to be massively big news. If it didn't receive big play, big attention, then, off top, it would seem to be because the media are biased against her, or biased for Trump, or biased for all conservative causes. Biased, anyway.
But, I think I see a little more, here. I've been considering on the thought processes of mankind. I would say, we often reject things simply because he don't give them enough thought. Perhaps we are too busy to think about the significance of them. Perhaps it takes too much mental effort and we don't want to expend the effort. Perhaps it is because the matter goes against our own biases and beliefs and so our mind shields us from giving it thought.
At any rate, it is due to our failure to think.
Some news people might have well downplayed the story knowingly. Some might have looked around and saw how others were shifting it to the side, and decided they, too, were justified in not giving it real big attention. Some might have downplayed it because President Trump is always singing of how the media is against him, and they feared being the biased media he refers to. We'll run it, they said, but we will take a middle-of-the-road approach by not overdoing it.
But, I suggest a lot it might be that they didn't think it through. Had they, it would seem they would have realized - they would have been forced by reason to realize -- just how significant the story was and they would have given it all the attention it deserves.
Now, news clearing Hillary would seem to be massively big news. If it didn't receive big play, big attention, then, off top, it would seem to be because the media are biased against her, or biased for Trump, or biased for all conservative causes. Biased, anyway.
But, I think I see a little more, here. I've been considering on the thought processes of mankind. I would say, we often reject things simply because he don't give them enough thought. Perhaps we are too busy to think about the significance of them. Perhaps it takes too much mental effort and we don't want to expend the effort. Perhaps it is because the matter goes against our own biases and beliefs and so our mind shields us from giving it thought.
At any rate, it is due to our failure to think.
Some news people might have well downplayed the story knowingly. Some might have looked around and saw how others were shifting it to the side, and decided they, too, were justified in not giving it real big attention. Some might have downplayed it because President Trump is always singing of how the media is against him, and they feared being the biased media he refers to. We'll run it, they said, but we will take a middle-of-the-road approach by not overdoing it.
But, I suggest a lot it might be that they didn't think it through. Had they, it would seem they would have realized - they would have been forced by reason to realize -- just how significant the story was and they would have given it all the attention it deserves.
Friday, January 10, 2020
Investigation into Hillary Clinton finding Nothing Worth Pursuing
Doesn't Uranium One remain on the tongue of angry conservatives? And, don't they wonder about her business dealings, and shout that they are illegal? And, doesn't Hillary's email server remain about as big of an issue as there is in our nation?
So, if a DOJ investigation -- drummed up by President Trump, himself -- were to come back finding nothing worth pursuing . . . wouldn't that be news -- big news?
The story broke today, but hardly got much play in the media, hardly got much attention. Why not? Hillary Clinton is spoken of in a disparaging manner by most every Republican you meet. You want to talk about anything, and they will turn the conversation to Hillary.
So, an official investigation has found nothing wrong with Hillary -- certainly no justification for Trump and others having said, "Hillary for Prison 2016" -- and it doesn't make much of a blip on the news of the day?
What's up?
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/report-utah-us-attorney/
So, if a DOJ investigation -- drummed up by President Trump, himself -- were to come back finding nothing worth pursuing . . . wouldn't that be news -- big news?
The story broke today, but hardly got much play in the media, hardly got much attention. Why not? Hillary Clinton is spoken of in a disparaging manner by most every Republican you meet. You want to talk about anything, and they will turn the conversation to Hillary.
So, an official investigation has found nothing wrong with Hillary -- certainly no justification for Trump and others having said, "Hillary for Prison 2016" -- and it doesn't make much of a blip on the news of the day?
What's up?
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/report-utah-us-attorney/
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Such is Our Senate and Such is Our Swamp
Drain the swamp. A swamp in Washington, as much as anything, can refer to politicians having their friends, and their friends supporting each other. Friends might not be a strong enough word. But, politicians supporting politicians in wickedness? Wickedness, is an interesting word, and I confess, I wonder if it is too strong. But, when you have loyalty to another politician, and that loyalty prevents you from prosecuting him for his crimes, that is a swamp. When you will not allow witnesses to testify against him, that is a swamp.
On Delusions and Today's Washington
The thought process of man? And of the delusional? Have thought about that of late. When a person is delusional, he doesn't wait for evidence. He doesn't need a hearing of the facts. He accepts for facts things that are not proven. And. he rejects things that are facts for things things he wants to believe. As I sat a while ago, typing in the above, I thought of the Senate Republicans, and of how they do not want witnesses. It is the same, then. They do not wait for evidence, and they reject what evidence there is in preference for believing what they want to believe.
I think of all the false memes I see these days, and of how, one after one, accusations leveled by Republicans turn out to be false. I imagine there are also false memes posted by Democrats, but the lying does seem to be largely the domain of the Republicans. And, these memes? Most people don't question them. They don't ask for evidence. They read the meme and are off and running with it. No verification necessary.
They might not consider themselves delusional. And, indeed, they are not crazy in the same severity as those we think of as being crazy. Still, if they allow themselves the thought patterns of the delusional when it comes to politics, then their beliefs when it comes to politics are going to be delusional.
I think of all the false memes I see these days, and of how, one after one, accusations leveled by Republicans turn out to be false. I imagine there are also false memes posted by Democrats, but the lying does seem to be largely the domain of the Republicans. And, these memes? Most people don't question them. They don't ask for evidence. They read the meme and are off and running with it. No verification necessary.
They might not consider themselves delusional. And, indeed, they are not crazy in the same severity as those we think of as being crazy. Still, if they allow themselves the thought patterns of the delusional when it comes to politics, then their beliefs when it comes to politics are going to be delusional.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
From the File on Morality in the Presidency
From the file on morality in the presidency, we find these three items:
President Trump suggested he would destroy cultural sites in Iran as part of the retaliation for killing Americans. He did back down on it when informed it would be a war crime. But, his suggesting it in the first place reveals he has no principles against it.
While campaigning in late 2015, he said he would take out the families of terrorists. What are we to think of targeting families?
A border patrolman in today's news spoke of the horror he felt in separating family members when he had to do so. He said it was, "the most horrible thing I've ever done." This news serves as a reminder that the Trump administration did separate families, dividing thousands of them, placing children in shelters while detaining or deporting their parents.
Some suggest the morality of the president doesn't matter. Things like a good economy and naming anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court are what matter.
But, the values your leader has do matter. They do impact the policies of the nation. They even influence what we, ourselves, belief, and what we, ourselves find as acceptable.
President Trump suggested he would destroy cultural sites in Iran as part of the retaliation for killing Americans. He did back down on it when informed it would be a war crime. But, his suggesting it in the first place reveals he has no principles against it.
While campaigning in late 2015, he said he would take out the families of terrorists. What are we to think of targeting families?
A border patrolman in today's news spoke of the horror he felt in separating family members when he had to do so. He said it was, "the most horrible thing I've ever done." This news serves as a reminder that the Trump administration did separate families, dividing thousands of them, placing children in shelters while detaining or deporting their parents.
Some suggest the morality of the president doesn't matter. Things like a good economy and naming anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court are what matter.
But, the values your leader has do matter. They do impact the policies of the nation. They even influence what we, ourselves, belief, and what we, ourselves find as acceptable.
Remove Politics from Politics
Politics in politics is a thing that never should be. We need to take the politics out of our politics.
I use two different meanings for the word, of course. One is the Republican vs. Democrats definition of the word. The other is simply a reference to public policies and the process of governing.
I use two different meanings for the word, of course. One is the Republican vs. Democrats definition of the word. The other is simply a reference to public policies and the process of governing.
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Here's One Thought on How to Declare War
The art of declaring war. Rewrite the book on how to do it. Perhaps, bring us back to the day when Congress declared war.
Which is what the Constitution intended. "Congress shall have power . . . To declare war . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
No room there for President Trump to do all the deciding.
Back in the day, all the U.S.'s foes were far across the sea. You couldn't attack in a minute. The Founding Fathers didn't realize there would come a time when attacks could be made at an instance. We should consider, there are two times when much deliberation on going to war is not prudent:
(1.) When you are suddenly attacked, and need to immediately defend yourself.
(2.) When you need to attack with the element of surprise.
Any new war powers act should perhaps state the U.S. forces can defend themselves if attacked. Perhaps such a law is already on the books. If not, place it there.
The element of surprise? If you allow allow all members of the House, and all members of the Senate, and all their staff to know about the attack, it isn't going to be kept secret. But, if you want to hold to the idea that Congress should be the party declaring war, not the president, how about giving war powers to just a handful or so members of Congress, maybe, say, five or seven members. Rather than making them beholden to the president, or to any current office holder, let them be selected by . . . the president of the Electoral College. Okay, we don't even have such a person -- president of the Electoral College -- but somehow I like the idea of restoring use of the Electoral College. So, elect a president of that body, and let him appoint the congressional members who will serve on the War Powers Board.
Or, maybe even let the whole of all the electors meet and vote on who will be on the War Powers Board.
In any such case where you need the element of surprise, the Department of Defense shall notify the president and the War Powers Board, and the president shall be allowed in attendance as a non-voting participant, and War Powers Board shall have power to declare all such acts of war.
Power to declare war would be returned to Congress, itself, for all other acts of war, with the body being given a one-day time limit for voting on whether to decide whether we will go to war. Should Congress want to reverse field, and get out of war after it authorized it, it can get together and nullify the decision to go to war.
Which is what the Constitution intended. "Congress shall have power . . . To declare war . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
No room there for President Trump to do all the deciding.
Back in the day, all the U.S.'s foes were far across the sea. You couldn't attack in a minute. The Founding Fathers didn't realize there would come a time when attacks could be made at an instance. We should consider, there are two times when much deliberation on going to war is not prudent:
(1.) When you are suddenly attacked, and need to immediately defend yourself.
(2.) When you need to attack with the element of surprise.
Any new war powers act should perhaps state the U.S. forces can defend themselves if attacked. Perhaps such a law is already on the books. If not, place it there.
The element of surprise? If you allow allow all members of the House, and all members of the Senate, and all their staff to know about the attack, it isn't going to be kept secret. But, if you want to hold to the idea that Congress should be the party declaring war, not the president, how about giving war powers to just a handful or so members of Congress, maybe, say, five or seven members. Rather than making them beholden to the president, or to any current office holder, let them be selected by . . . the president of the Electoral College. Okay, we don't even have such a person -- president of the Electoral College -- but somehow I like the idea of restoring use of the Electoral College. So, elect a president of that body, and let him appoint the congressional members who will serve on the War Powers Board.
Or, maybe even let the whole of all the electors meet and vote on who will be on the War Powers Board.
In any such case where you need the element of surprise, the Department of Defense shall notify the president and the War Powers Board, and the president shall be allowed in attendance as a non-voting participant, and War Powers Board shall have power to declare all such acts of war.
Power to declare war would be returned to Congress, itself, for all other acts of war, with the body being given a one-day time limit for voting on whether to decide whether we will go to war. Should Congress want to reverse field, and get out of war after it authorized it, it can get together and nullify the decision to go to war.
Does Prejudism Remain in the NFL?
Read a story by Doug Farrar of MSN about the dearth of black head coaches in the NFL. Of the 31 teams, only Miami, San Diego, and Pittsburgh have black head coaches.
The number of such coaches fell off after the 2018 season, but I understand it normally was at about eight. Eric Bieniemy, the offensive coordinator at Kansas City, is one who would seem to be in line for an NFL top job, but so far it has been passed over.
Only three out of 31? In a league where 70 percent of the players are black? One conjures up the day when there were no black quarterbacks, and wonders if shades of that day remain.
It also turns my thoughts to Colin Kaepernick, as I am quick to think in that direction. Kaepernick's protests were on behalf of blacks, and against the police violence and the unequal percentage of blacks who are imprisoned, making one wonder if there exists discrimination against blacks on the streets of our nation.
The NFL would have none of Kaepernick's protesting -- no standing up for blacks at the expense of standing up for the flag. Now, let's see: A league that disrespects protests for the equality of blacks on the streets, also fails to hire hardly any black coaches -- is there a connection?
We may think we have left behind discrimination in America, but have we? When the issue was new and the focus was on making sure black coaches were hired, they were hired in more abundance. But, then, after a time, the number dips to but three. Do a number of owners have a preference for hiring white coaches? After a time, does prejudism edge back in?
And, America-- we in the public? We may have left behind much of our discrimination, but do strands of it still exist? I think of the murder rate in Chicago, and of how the victims are dominantly black and of how so many of the murders go unsolved, and, yes, I wonder why. No real push to solve a crime if you don't view it as your own people being murdered? Just wonder.
We, as a nation -- or many of us, anyway -- get upset when it is suggested blacks are discriminated against in our day. We get riled up about it. Why is that? Why can't we just look at what is happening, and be open to considering that the day of racism just might not be all the way behind us.
The number of such coaches fell off after the 2018 season, but I understand it normally was at about eight. Eric Bieniemy, the offensive coordinator at Kansas City, is one who would seem to be in line for an NFL top job, but so far it has been passed over.
Only three out of 31? In a league where 70 percent of the players are black? One conjures up the day when there were no black quarterbacks, and wonders if shades of that day remain.
It also turns my thoughts to Colin Kaepernick, as I am quick to think in that direction. Kaepernick's protests were on behalf of blacks, and against the police violence and the unequal percentage of blacks who are imprisoned, making one wonder if there exists discrimination against blacks on the streets of our nation.
The NFL would have none of Kaepernick's protesting -- no standing up for blacks at the expense of standing up for the flag. Now, let's see: A league that disrespects protests for the equality of blacks on the streets, also fails to hire hardly any black coaches -- is there a connection?
We may think we have left behind discrimination in America, but have we? When the issue was new and the focus was on making sure black coaches were hired, they were hired in more abundance. But, then, after a time, the number dips to but three. Do a number of owners have a preference for hiring white coaches? After a time, does prejudism edge back in?
And, America-- we in the public? We may have left behind much of our discrimination, but do strands of it still exist? I think of the murder rate in Chicago, and of how the victims are dominantly black and of how so many of the murders go unsolved, and, yes, I wonder why. No real push to solve a crime if you don't view it as your own people being murdered? Just wonder.
We, as a nation -- or many of us, anyway -- get upset when it is suggested blacks are discriminated against in our day. We get riled up about it. Why is that? Why can't we just look at what is happening, and be open to considering that the day of racism just might not be all the way behind us.
Monday, January 6, 2020
It is the cold souls
who need the most warm weather
The cold souls among mankind. The sullen. Those who seem unlovable.
Oh, yes, the unlovable. The unlovable are the ones we need to love the most. Think of how a person who is struck, strikes back. It is nature. If someone feels rejected, they become angry. They lash out in return.
In a world that dreams of peace, it is the hurt, the hardened, who commit so many crimes. It is the hurt, the hardened, who often beat their spouses and children. You extend them love, and who knows the peace you bring into this world.
Every human being needs to be loved. It is the fuel that gives them life. Those rejected by society, and those rejected by their peers are left without that food which gives life meaning. And, with no reason to live, they become a flame of fire, a fireball that torches humanity before flaming out in its own death. I do not know, for certain, why a share of mass murderers take their own lives, but I do wonder if this is it: They have been so rejected by society that they lash out in anger at the world. But, then, having no reason to live, they also take their own lives.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Having a Body is a Blessing, but There are Times it can be a Curse
If there are devils still on this earth -- evil spirits -- and if they gain access to the bodies of mankind, and afflict them, and perhaps are the cause of what we see as being mental illness, even, then what of when the afflicted dies?
He is released from the torment of devils. If he no longer has a body, but is a spirit only, then the devils will no longer be able to enter his body to torment him.
Having a body is a blessing. But, there are times it can be a curse.
He is released from the torment of devils. If he no longer has a body, but is a spirit only, then the devils will no longer be able to enter his body to torment him.
Having a body is a blessing. But, there are times it can be a curse.
Destroying Another's Life Might be Every Bit as Bad as Murdering Them
Destroying another's life might be worse than murdering him. Consider how we take the elderly, and as they pass away, we say that since it removed them from their pain, it is all for the better.
If life can be so painful you are better off without it, then what of those who are made so miserable, yet condemned to remain alive? Death is a comfort to those in pain, yet they have not the escape of death.
Unless they commit suicide, and many of them do.
At any rate, if you ruin another's life -- if you make it so miserable for them that life isn't worth it -- perhaps you commit an offense as great as murder, in this sense. So, think twice. Certainly do not inflict on them the pain if they don't have it coming. Character assassination? Robbing them of their belongings?
And, even if they do "deserve it," think twice. The better chance is that even with their faults, they still deserve your love.
If life can be so painful you are better off without it, then what of those who are made so miserable, yet condemned to remain alive? Death is a comfort to those in pain, yet they have not the escape of death.
Unless they commit suicide, and many of them do.
At any rate, if you ruin another's life -- if you make it so miserable for them that life isn't worth it -- perhaps you commit an offense as great as murder, in this sense. So, think twice. Certainly do not inflict on them the pain if they don't have it coming. Character assassination? Robbing them of their belongings?
And, even if they do "deserve it," think twice. The better chance is that even with their faults, they still deserve your love.
On President Trump Revealing Name of the Whistle-Blower
Friday, President Trump retweeted the alleged name of the person who blew the whistle on him. Unmasking the whistle-blower appears to be a violation of federal protection laws.
If you break the law, you should be held accountable for it. All that President Trump does, though, is lost in the chain of so many things to pick from. So, I am grateful to the Deseret News for the online story from which I caught this news. With so many things he has done, and with so many people outraged that the news should even cover them, things like this often receive little attention. Perhaps there will be no new impeachment hearings in the House for this. But, there should be.
If you break the law, you should be held accountable for it. All that President Trump does, though, is lost in the chain of so many things to pick from. So, I am grateful to the Deseret News for the online story from which I caught this news. With so many things he has done, and with so many people outraged that the news should even cover them, things like this often receive little attention. Perhaps there will be no new impeachment hearings in the House for this. But, there should be.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Thursday, January 2, 2020
White Settlement Aside, Letting Everyone be the Sheriff isn't Wise
One thought would be to have more deputies. A lot of more deputies.
We look at the White Settlement, Texas, shooting, at how the church had a number of people carrying guns, and how they shot the shooter down.
It becomes fresh argument for giving everyone a gun. But, should it be? Those who had the guns -- those who shot the shooter down -- were designated by the church.
There are two ways of going about law enforcement:
One, let the vigilantes do it. Allow everyone to bring their guns onto your private property, and to use them at their own discretion. More or less, let everyone who wants to appoint themselves as sheriff, appoint themselves as sheriff.
Two, deputize enough people. Instead of letting everyone declare themselves the sheriff, pick your officers. Run background checks on them. Train them on when and when not to use their guns -- and how to use them. And, then deputize them.
In the wild west, when law enforcement was running right, when the sheriff could see he had a bigger problem than he himself could handle, he went out and deputized however many he needed to cover the situation. When law enforcement wasn't running right, you had vigilante justice, everyone -- authorized or not -- on the loose, performing their own form of justice.
Being a sheriff isn't something you should be able to declare yourself. Should we really allow everyone to do that? What took place in White Settlement, the same, it remains to this day unwise.
We look at the White Settlement, Texas, shooting, at how the church had a number of people carrying guns, and how they shot the shooter down.
It becomes fresh argument for giving everyone a gun. But, should it be? Those who had the guns -- those who shot the shooter down -- were designated by the church.
There are two ways of going about law enforcement:
One, let the vigilantes do it. Allow everyone to bring their guns onto your private property, and to use them at their own discretion. More or less, let everyone who wants to appoint themselves as sheriff, appoint themselves as sheriff.
Two, deputize enough people. Instead of letting everyone declare themselves the sheriff, pick your officers. Run background checks on them. Train them on when and when not to use their guns -- and how to use them. And, then deputize them.
In the wild west, when law enforcement was running right, when the sheriff could see he had a bigger problem than he himself could handle, he went out and deputized however many he needed to cover the situation. When law enforcement wasn't running right, you had vigilante justice, everyone -- authorized or not -- on the loose, performing their own form of justice.
Being a sheriff isn't something you should be able to declare yourself. Should we really allow everyone to do that? What took place in White Settlement, the same, it remains to this day unwise.
Guns for All? Churches Remain with the Right to Say 'No'
With the shooting at the church in White Settlement, Texas, I can see the benefit of guns in the church. It is hard to deny the benefit served by allowing those parishioners to bring their guns. It clearly saved the day (save for the three lives that were lost).
Lest you think mine is a change of my opinion from what I have had in the past, I don't think so. I have argued for allowing private security. Though unpaid, those who brought their guns were specified by the church management. It wasn't open season. Not everyone in the congregation was free to bring their guns. Those who did, were cleared to do so, thus allowing a degree of discretion. If all could bring their guns, the danger of their being used, and the reality that those guns might end up being used -- same as the assailant in this case ended up using his -- would remain.
The proliferation of guns does not lead to a reduction in their use. When you deploy them, it should be with discretion. You want guns to defend, but that is as far as you go.
Churches have the right to say what can and cannot be done on their property. Yes, the Second Amendment does say we shall not infringe of the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not extend to bringing them onto private property if the private property owner doesn't want them there. Property rights are also part of the Constitution. If the property owner can say who can and cannot come on his property, he can say whether he will allow them to bring guns.
(Note: One sentence, "Property rights are also part of the Constitution," added Jan. 2.)
Lest you think mine is a change of my opinion from what I have had in the past, I don't think so. I have argued for allowing private security. Though unpaid, those who brought their guns were specified by the church management. It wasn't open season. Not everyone in the congregation was free to bring their guns. Those who did, were cleared to do so, thus allowing a degree of discretion. If all could bring their guns, the danger of their being used, and the reality that those guns might end up being used -- same as the assailant in this case ended up using his -- would remain.
The proliferation of guns does not lead to a reduction in their use. When you deploy them, it should be with discretion. You want guns to defend, but that is as far as you go.
Churches have the right to say what can and cannot be done on their property. Yes, the Second Amendment does say we shall not infringe of the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not extend to bringing them onto private property if the private property owner doesn't want them there. Property rights are also part of the Constitution. If the property owner can say who can and cannot come on his property, he can say whether he will allow them to bring guns.
(Note: One sentence, "Property rights are also part of the Constitution," added Jan. 2.)
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
In the Gallagher Affair, President Trump Erodes Our Values as a Nation
My thought? President Trump's restoring Edward Gallagher to his rank and his status in the Navy Seals is a reflection of how the president is corrupting America. The values you espouse as president, become the values your faithful followers endorse.
If you say the killing was justified, they follow your lead, and also see the killing as justified.
Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher: He was accused of just pulling out a knife and stabbing an ISIS prisoner. No reason. He just pulled out a knife, walked up, and stabbed the prisoner.
The incident was back in the news this past week, fellow Navy Seals calling him "toxic," and "evil."
Gallagher was found not guilty by a military tribunal in July. Yes, I would wonder if that is a miscarriage of justice. But, he was in the process of being kicked out of the Seals, and his title yanked as the military jury did convict him of posing with the body of the ISIS soldier.
President Trump restored his rank, membership and privileges in the Seals.
The issue brings up the thought of whether we should even allow that there should be such a thing as war crimes. The prisoner was an ISIS soldier. Now, how bad is ISIS? Can there be anything wrong with killing an ISIS prisoner? This is war: You kill the enemy.
No thought there for the sanctity of life. No thought there, that when the soldier has been captured, he no longer is a danger to you. Kill him: He inherently doesn't have the right to live.
And, President Trump? Support our officers. Support the military. Stand behind them. Have their back. Salute them.
Wrong remains wrong, regardless how the world spins it, and you don't salute what Gallagher did. Killing remains a violation of the Ten Commandments. Christianity remains Christianity, and what Gallagher did cannot be justified.
To have a president teaching us otherwise is not good. It erodes our values as a nation.
If you say the killing was justified, they follow your lead, and also see the killing as justified.
Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher: He was accused of just pulling out a knife and stabbing an ISIS prisoner. No reason. He just pulled out a knife, walked up, and stabbed the prisoner.
The incident was back in the news this past week, fellow Navy Seals calling him "toxic," and "evil."
Gallagher was found not guilty by a military tribunal in July. Yes, I would wonder if that is a miscarriage of justice. But, he was in the process of being kicked out of the Seals, and his title yanked as the military jury did convict him of posing with the body of the ISIS soldier.
President Trump restored his rank, membership and privileges in the Seals.
The issue brings up the thought of whether we should even allow that there should be such a thing as war crimes. The prisoner was an ISIS soldier. Now, how bad is ISIS? Can there be anything wrong with killing an ISIS prisoner? This is war: You kill the enemy.
No thought there for the sanctity of life. No thought there, that when the soldier has been captured, he no longer is a danger to you. Kill him: He inherently doesn't have the right to live.
And, President Trump? Support our officers. Support the military. Stand behind them. Have their back. Salute them.
Wrong remains wrong, regardless how the world spins it, and you don't salute what Gallagher did. Killing remains a violation of the Ten Commandments. Christianity remains Christianity, and what Gallagher did cannot be justified.
To have a president teaching us otherwise is not good. It erodes our values as a nation.
Truth disregards whether it will be accepted
Truth often disregards whether it will be heard, whether it will be accepted. It does not back down to those who shame it. As someone once said, it goes forth boldly and nobly.
Truth is not always welcome. If it challenges those things we currently believe, and challenges our alliances we already have, we reject it.
But, it speaks, the same. It often does not demur. There are times truth assesses the battlefield, and determines not to make an entrance, knowing the battle is lost. But, at other times, it determines it will live with those losses but must go to battle, the same. Truth fights its battles, even when the battles are lost. It knows the enemy, and it knows the enemy will sometimes be stronger.
News Missed Out on This Significant Story on the Impeachment
I thought I saw this story early today (now yesterday) on MSN, but searched high and low using maybe a half-dozen different search engines. Couldn't find it. Must have been mistaken. There was no such story.
Then, thought to call up all the president's latest tweets, and found it.
The tweet: It is not as severe as I thought. I thought he called for the impeachment to be dropped. There is a difference between saying you think it should be dropped and saying, "Drop it." In one, you are normally within your rights as a defendant. In the other, your position as president comes into play. If you use your office as President of the United States to call for a dismissal of the trial, that would be wrong. Obstruction of justice -- in no small way.
Still, we cannot let go of the significance of this tweet. Mitch McConnell has said he will do whatever the president wants him to do. If the president is here saying he thinks the trial should be dropped, how does McConnell respond? Newscasters should have been scurrying to ask him. They should have asked if this will affect him in any way as he draws up plans on what should be done.
So, the significance of this tweet remains pretty large, maybe even huge. It deserves more attention than what the news sources and search engines have given it. For it to be lost from the news feeds by the end of the day? They all erred in removing this story from their news feeds or not carrying it in the first place.
Not to mention, what about his calling himself a lawyer? That is -- should be -- a significant story, itself.
Then, thought to call up all the president's latest tweets, and found it.
It’s my opinion as a lawyer that the Articles of Impeachment are defective on their face, which means I would like to see a Motion to Dismiss and have this disbursed without the necessity of a trial. I don’t think there should be a trial. I think it should be dismissed....
Still, we cannot let go of the significance of this tweet. Mitch McConnell has said he will do whatever the president wants him to do. If the president is here saying he thinks the trial should be dropped, how does McConnell respond? Newscasters should have been scurrying to ask him. They should have asked if this will affect him in any way as he draws up plans on what should be done.
So, the significance of this tweet remains pretty large, maybe even huge. It deserves more attention than what the news sources and search engines have given it. For it to be lost from the news feeds by the end of the day? They all erred in removing this story from their news feeds or not carrying it in the first place.
Not to mention, what about his calling himself a lawyer? That is -- should be -- a significant story, itself.
For the honor of its own name,
truth never calls others names.
An asterisk on this one. It will call a fraud and fraud, and cite the incidents where this is true. But, it never stoops to such expressions that are typically used in name-calling, such as "idiot," "slime," etc. Usually, it will refer to the event, not the person, saying, "You were dishonest on that occasion," instead of, "You are a liar," but there are times when a liar should be called a liar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)