A Little -- I Mean, a Lot -- of Good Hygiene Might Stop Coronavirus

   Perhaps, the solution to the Coronavirus is simple enough. Perhaps health officials have already told us what that solution is.
   Wash your hands as often as they get dirty. Cough into your elbow or into a tissue. Keep your hands away from your nose, eyes and mouth.
   And, what if we added to that, everyone wear a mask?
   Germs are spread through the air, and by the touch of the hand. It would seem that simple, then: Follow the basic rules, and the germs just won't spread.
   Getting everyone to do this? Or, at least a significant portion of us? Let our newscasts preach it. Let our leaders stress it. Let one person encourage another.
   There are fineries to be worked out. Do we take off our masks to sneeze and cough? Otherwise, the germs remain in our mask, and does that make them incubators instead of filters?
   And, with all this, I wonder if we cut off all the germs, if that actually in the long run would do more harm than good. We build up immunities by taking in some germs. If we had no immunities, once a germ got through, would it be more deadly than ever?

We Should Consider if Stark Measures are Prudent

  What if we were to put a freeze on all inbound travel? A dire and too-stringent of a measure, perhaps, but all things should be considered, even if we toss them aside after considering them.
  If you leave the United States, don't expect to be let back in until the Coronavirus is over.
  What if we told businesses to start now having those employees who can, work online from home?
  What if we had our schools go online, keeping the children home?
  What if groceries orders were called in, and you picked them up at a window or door?
   Some things, might be too Spartan. Some measures might be overkill.
   But, then again, maybe not. What are the worst-case scenarios of a Coronavirus pandemic, and what are the least-harmful scenarios? We should consider what our risk is, that we can better determine whether stark measures are in order.

  In the Soviet Union, if the USA was first to land on the moon, they didn't need to report it. I don't know if the moon landing was reported there, in good time and with good coverage, or not. But, I am sure there are examples of how things the Soviets didn't want know were simply played down, ignored, or silenced.
  I found myself reflecting on President Trump's downplaying of the Corona Virus. Stung by the rebukes for doing so, he might have come around, some. But, initially, there was the administration official saying the virus had been contained, and there were comments suggesting it was no more dangerous than the common flu.
  Your life's work, to some degree, is the economy, if you are Trump. It is the one thing he has been able to hang his hat on. To see the stock market take a historic dive might make you jump to try throwing a cover over it. If you were ruler in the same sense as the rulers of the old Soviet Union, that is what you would do.
   He didn't get away with it. This so far remains America -- mostly -- despite how much President Trump tries to imitate the Soviet Union. I worry at the many things he tries to do that mimic the Soviets, the same.

The Chilling Side of Such Lawsuits is They Attack Freedom of Speech

    There's a chilling underbelly to these lawsuits. George Zimmerman is suing Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren. Tulsi Gabbard filed suit against Hillary Clinton. Devin Nunez would sue Twitter to shut down what he feels are defamatory statements.
    Do not let it go unnoticed President Trump has encouraged these types of lawsuits. And, do not let it go unnoticed that the freedoms of a nation hinge on the right to criticize. Nunez's case has been thrown out, I believe. But, I do wonder that these types of lawsuits might gain traction with the courts.
  Take the lawsuit by One America New against MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Maddow called something "Russian propaganda," and that drew a lawsuit against her.
  If we reach a point where you cannot speak harshly about the the president, or you cannot say Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin was racist -- that becomes an illegal opinion -- then, yes, freedom of speech is in jeopardy -- great jeopardy.
  And, when the president of the nation is endorsing such lawsuits, and there is a groundswell of public opinion behind them, one fears they could somehow be given credence in the courts, and our freedom to criticize the state come tumbling down.
 

The Times of Our Nation are as Dangerous as This

   President Trump is calling for two of the Supreme Court justices, likely to vote against him, to step away when cases involving him come up.
 Is this intimidation? Could ever it lead to pressure great enough that they are forced to step aside? Suppose someone did a poll -- not an unlikely thing, at all -- and it came back showing the majority of Americans agreed justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor should step aside for cases involving Trump? Could Trump's call for their removal, together with public pressure, lead to them actually recusing themselves?
  Worse: Could they ever be forced by presidential decree to step away on cases involving Trump? You might suppose that would never happen. Me? I look at all he has done, and do not rule it an impossibility. At all.
  Courts should be beholden to justice, and to justice, alone. Those appointed by Trump already are indebted to him. It is wrong to eyeball those who might oppose you and seek their removal. Now, yes, there are those in this country who do see the danger in what Trump is doing. But, many do not. Indeed, many will join him in calling for Ginsburg and Sotomayor to recuse themselves. Many will even be outraged that the two are allowed on the court.
  The times of our nation are as dangerous as this.

Give Them Command of Their Own Destiny, and They Might Prosper

   There is scripture -- prophecy -- among those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the descendants of the Book of Mormon people will someday, "blossom as a rose." (Doctrine and Covenants 49:24)
   As I blogged yesterday, wondering at how perhaps a socialistic governing of the Indian Reservations is holding them back, I thought how maybe it will not be until we release them from that socialism that they blossom.
   They are not blossoming at present. Many live in poverty.
   We speak of those in Venezuela and other places, and of how socialism has reduced them to poverty. Is perhaps the same happening with the Native Americans, where government is restrictive, where they have not personal property rights, where they governed much from Washington?
   I do remain wondering if they could prosper under communal ownership, even under a communal management. This would be socialism, as well, wouldn't it. But it would allow pride of ownership, and pride of management, whereas now much is done from Washington.
   The native Americans need to be given the right to command their own destiny. If we do not give them individual property ownership, at least give them the right, as tribes, to own the property.

What One Set of People in America are Ruined by Socialism?

 We often look at socialistic countries and notice their poverty. Well, open your eyes and notice there is one group of people in America with a socialistic government, and those people are among the poorest in the nation.
  What part of our nation is more socialistic than any other? How about the Indian reservations? If socialism is when government over-regulates, if it is when it makes many of the decisions for you, if it is when it owns your land and lets you live on it instead of granting you property rights, if it is when it supposes it can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself . . .
  Look to the reservations.
  We notice the poverty on the reservations. Plenty of it. Wonder why? As we shout and share stories about how socialism has ruined countries such as Venezuela, well, perhaps we should stop and consider how there is another example right here in America.

The tongue that lashes cuts deeper 

than the whip that snaps.

Free the American Natives

   Abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sell off -- I mean give -- the reservation land to the American natives. And, give them their own state.
  We suppose ourselves wards to these people. That might be good, but they will prosper more if we release them from our thumb.
  "5 Ways the Government Keeps Native Americans in Poverty," says the headline to an article. They cannot mortgage their property to start a business. They face government regulation on most any decision they make. They cannot sell coal or other natural resources without going through more hoops than the rest of us.
   When I first read the headline, I thought how it was a little unfair, suggesting the government is trying to keep them in poverty. The system might, indeed, be doing that. But, it seemed unlikely it was doing it on purpose.
   Then, I thought back to the day the BIA was created. Back then, they might well have had a bias against these original Americans. They might, indeed, have intended to hold them back in the name of doing everything for them.
   It is over. Or, it should be. Free the American Natives. Freedom is not freedom if it doesn't come with the right to own your own property. It is time we said goodbye to the charade of the past, time we set the American Natives free. Divide up the land among all the Native Americans, giving each a parcel to own as their own.
   Take the roughly 310 reservations in America and make them a single state. This would be different, having so many islands of land combined into a single state. But, off top, I see no reason it can't or shouldn't work. Let them make their own rules on who shall be allowed to buy property in their state. If they want to keep it to only those who have Native American blood in them, so be it.
   It would be wonderful to preserve their heritage. It would be nice to let them retain their race.
   And, it would be good to see them prosper. If we free them, perhaps they will.

Is Trump Assaulting Our Three Branches of Government System?

  If a president is seeking to insert himself too strongly into the judicial system, we should be concerned. We have checks and balances in our country, put there in the Constitution for a reason. Yes, we should be alarmed when they come under attack by a president. Yes, we should be concerned when he inserts himself too deeply into the judicial branch. Yes, we should raise our eyebrows when he suggests he is immune from the judicial branch by virtue of "executive privilege."
   Dictators begin this way. Whether we say it will go that far, still, as Americans -- if we truly are going to be eternally vigilant as we have promised to all our lives -- we do not let these things happen.
   We say, Don't tread on me, and put a stop to the corruption of our government. The checks and balances are an integral and essential part of our government. Let the three branches of government remain free from one taking over the other.

If you concentrate on how hard the journey is, 

it only gets harder.

The Mark of a Dictator is Purging Foes, and Setting Cronies Free

  I continue to be concerned about what has happened these past weeks since President Trump was acquitted. Let these things not drop from our consciousness. Bagging those in government who are not seen as loyal? Setting in motion a process for finding them and eliminating them? Purges are what dictators are all about. Loyalty and devotion is what kings require. Getting your political cronies off the hook? Is that right? Is it just? Is it not what is done in other countries as dictators take over?

Trump is First President to Face Two Separate Impeachment Efforts

  President Trump is the only president to face not just one, but two impeachment efforts. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all faced impeachment efforts. More than one alleged offense was involved in the Clinton impeachment. Still, it was a single impeachment effort.
  Donald Trump faced two. One, with the Mueller Report, and one with the Ukraine affair.
   In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, formal proceedings were initiated in the House. That didn't happen with the first effort against Trump, as Nancy Pelosi declined to pursue impeachment. Still, Mueller's investigation was part of the process that brings impeachment. The impeachment process was underway. Trump faced two separate efforts, something no other president has ever faced.
 

Of Impeachment Efforts, Only One had no Independent Counsel

   Three modern-day presidents have faced impeachment efforts. There was the John Doar investigation to go with the Nixon event. And, there was Ken Starr's investigation to go with the Clinton affair.
   Then, along came Donald Trump and accusations concerning Ukraine. The Mueller Report was about different affairs, and had nothing to do with the Ukraine accusations. Note, too, that the foundation for the Mueller Investigation came while President Obama was in office, not Trump.
  So, no independent investigation? Why? If you want justice to be done, why do you not investigate the accusations? We had independent counsel in both the Nixon affair, and the Clinton affair, but none for Donald Trump?
  Much has been made of how the Senate did not allow witnesses to testify. This, too -- no formal investigation by an independent counsel -- should be noted.

The Constitution Provides a Way to Elect a 'Dream President'

   Times like this demand that we take a look at how we are doing things, and see if we are doing them the way the original Constitution calls for it to be done.
   I mean, how we elect a president. And, no, we aren't doing it the way the founders of our nation set it up. Pick that scroll off the shelf, and read it. It will tell you. It's a good blueprint. Too bad we aren't following it.
   It says each state shall appoint electors, none of which shall be elected leaders, themselves, and none of which shall be employed by government. They vote for two candidates, and the top vote-getter becomes president, and the next-highest becomes vice president.
   That would defuse politics to a degree. Your vice president might not have the same politics as you, but he would be part of your administration. You'd have to work with him.
   Now, there are a couple of things the Constitution doesn't say. It doesn't say anything about political parties. It doesn't say anything about outlawing them, though, so I suppose we might allow them.
   And, the Constitution doesn't say anything about just picking from among candidates who run for the office. I have to think back on that first election, when George Washington was elected. Did he "run" for office. Did he even announce he was a candidate? Or, did he more-or-less get drafted.
   I suppose, let people announce themselves as candidates, if they will. But, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Electoral College needs to pick from among them.
  It can draft someone. Let the candidates make all their noise, and spend all their money, and then go off and elect someone else.
  We think of the elections where we've looked down the list of candidates, and not found a one we would want as our president. The Constitution could fix all that, if we'd just follow it. The electors could mull over who they would pick if they could pick their "dream president." And, they could pick that "dream president," if we'd just do this the way the Constitution proscribes it be done.
 

If Trump Commands the Courts, He Will Command the Nation

  When a president threatens to take over the judicial system of the United States, and turn it into a prosecutorial arm for those who oppose him, that nation ought to see a pathway leading to dictatorship. Whether it goes that far may yet to be seen. But, the carpet is rolled out.
  When a president calls for all cases stemming from the Mueller Report to be thrown out, that nation should see a blatant effort to not only discredit all the work the Justice Department has done, but a blatant effort to set one's own political cronies free.
   Recognize the truth for what it is. Freedom is fleeing the nation that yawns when its president threatens to take over the judicial system. If you control the judicial system, and can prosecute all your opponents, and set free all your henchmen -- that certainly is the beginning of a dictatorship. You let a president go there, and there is little to stop him. He who rules the courts, rules how much power he has. He can take it all, for no court can stop him. He who commands the courts, commands the nation.
   Here, then, is the quote: 
   "I'm allowed to be totally involved. I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer in the country. But I've chosen not to be involved."
    If that quote doesn't scare you, it certainly scares me. Not just because of the words, but because of the background they come from -- because of the actions that accompany them.
   What is happening it real. It isn't a lie.
   I do not take the quote lightly, not when I see how he much he already has been involved. Yes, I take the threat of him pardoning his political friends as as real, and unjust, and as the mark of a dictator.
   I wonder at us, that we would hear he wants to throw out all the cases against his political friends, and somehow think that that is just. I surely do look at the Mueller Investigation as being honest, and wish more people would stand up and defend it. Instead, it is being played as being dishonest, and unjust.
   Yes, I am amazed at what is going on in our land.

The Downfall of Our Nation Threatens Right Before Our Eyes

  It is late. But, I consider the major, shocking news stories of our day, of mass shootings that grab our attention, and even of 9-11 and how the whole nation tuned in at once, shocked.
  I believe the news of the day should arouse us as much as most anything possibly could. I pick up one story: "Trump calls for all cases stemming from Mueller probe to be 'thrown out,' " reads the headline.
  Already reeling, I happen across another story. "Post-impeachment, Trump declares himself  'chief law enforcement officer' of America," screams The Washington Post headline.
   I shiver and I shake, I do. I'm amazed. I'm shocked.  A week ago, was it?, that we had the Roger Stone thing. We could see the markings of a dictator coming, but we couldn't imagine things would unfold as rapidly as this.
   Reads the first paragraph of the Washington Post story by Toluse Olorunnipa and Beth Reinhard:
   "During his Senate impeachment trial, Democrats repeatedly asserted that President Trump is 'not above the law.' But since his acquittal two weeks ago, analysts say, the president has taken a series of steps aimed at showing that, essentially, he is the law."
   Stop, and reflect on that, and on what a dictator is. If you make yourself the law, you make yourself   a dictator. There is no difference.
   "Trump defended his actions, saying he has the right to shape the country's legal systems as he sees fit," says the Washington Post story.
   What less is a dictator, than someone who completely controls the courts?
   And, we are not concerned with what is going on in our nation? The news of the day is but a blip in our thoughts?
   To me, the news is amazing. We see the nation falling apart in front of our eyes. We just rub our eyes in disbelief. Eternal vigilance? Whether we know for certain how far President Trump will go, and what this will lead to, we should see that what he has done today already has the markings of a dictator, and already has the markings of the fall of our nation. We should be pouring into the streets, alarmed and protesting. Evil unopposed leads you only to hell. The downfall of a nation comes quickly to those who see not the fall.

What about a Foreign Policy that begins with Caring for People?

   What of a country that would base its foreign policy much on the welfare of people? We have Syria and Turkey battling over the Idlib province -- with 3.5 million refugees trapped in the middle.
    That makes for the largest refugee camp in the world, if we are going to call it a refugee camp.
   What of a nation that would be so concerned about the people of the world that it would seek to protect and give care to these refugees? How? I don't know, maybe negotiate entrance, bring humanitarian supplies, and guard the refugees against attack.
   What about a nation that -- more than seeking to side with the Turks or the Syrians -- sided with the people caught in the middle?
    I know the thought: that we can't be police to the world. I know President Trump is cutting back on foreign aid. But, in a world of war, it is the people caught in the middle we should be most concerned about. 
   If foreign policy starts there, humanity is served best.

The vehicle to dictatorship is often a political party

   Look at the dictators of the world, and consider how some of them came to power. Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela? Elected. Vladimir Lenin in the Soviet Union? He rode in on the Bolshevik Party.
   The vehicle to dictatorship is often a political party. Those who think it could never happen here, in America, should consider we might already be on the way, with President Trump. The signs are there. Purge your opponents. Get rid of the enemies of the state. Exonerate those of your own party.
   Control the press. Many in America will no longer take their news from the standard media. We must consider Fox News and wonder if Pravda in the Soviet Union was ever so biased. In retrospect, we must wonder if the founding of Fox News was a monumental step towards providing an environment where a dictator might step in.
   Political parties -- they engender undivided, blind loyalty. A would-be dictator needs but to plug into the loyalty they provide, and a dictator he can become. Look at the vote in the impeachment, and how Republicans refused to allow witnesses or to even have a real trial, and how they voted almost by acclimation -- not so different than elections in some lands where there are dictators and the party leaders vote for the dictator with all votes cast one way, and none in opposition.
   Political parties whip up blind support for their standard-bearer. Look at the democracies that have fallen, and notice how often the dictator comes to power not by crushing democracy, but through democracy. Sometimes, even, they are elected, then they take power.
 
 

Let McCabe be Vindicated in the Public Square

   These charges from the Andrew McCabe camp, from his lawyer and against the Office of the Investigator General -- they beg to come to light.
   Oh, they are old, issued in 2018. But, consider the gravity of them. They allege OIG investigators asked the former deputy director of the FBI to appear immediately, and at a moment when his legal counsel was not available. One wonders if that is even legal, and should have caused the whole case against McCabe to be thrown out.
   And, they allege the OIG investigators assured him they would discuss other matters, and not McCabe, himself. They don't use the term, but luring him there under false pretenses is what it amounts to. Is that legal?
   When they sprung the trap on him, after discussing other matters for the greater length of time, McCabe scrambled to put them off until he could have legal counsel present. And, in the surprise in being ambushed, he perhaps didn't fully understand the questions and certainly didn't have time to give thoughtful answers.
  McCabe's lawyer following that meeting, former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich, notes that rather than trying to hide the truth, McCabe quickly sought to correct the inaccuracies, contacting the OIG just two days later.
   Then, in drawing their conclusions, the OIG gave no leeway that James Comey's and McCabe's recollections might differ simply by honest fault of memory. And, they inexplicably simply chose Comey' recollections over McCabe's, even though McCabe's had documentation.
   Justice is never justice when those who are to administer it enter with an agenda. It is not wrong to wonder if Trump officials pressured the OIG to come up with something on McCabe.
  And, they did. They said he lacked candor in his responses to agents.
   Much has been made of the Carter Page FISA applications. Were they obtained legally? For one thing, they didn't disclose that Page was a source to the CIA from 2008 to 2013. For such things, investigators were accused of incompetence.
   And, so, on the McCabe case? Not giving time for having a lawyer present? Luring him in under false pretenses? Someone could call for an investigation into the OIG's investigation of McCabe. Rather than that, I would say just look at the record of what happened. Just let it be known. Open the news to the light of day, and let McCabe be vindicated in the public square.
 

Too often, 

belief is the product of influence,

 not the product of truth. 

A Nation Loyal to Party can Fall Easier to a Dictator

  There is in the American political system, a dangerous feature that increases the chances a dictator taking over. The founding fathers didn't place this feature into the system, but it quickly emerged.
   And, today, its danger has never been so grave.
   Consider past nations that have fallen, and how there were times the incoming dictator came in on a wave of populism.
  With political parties, comes the rallying behind the party's incumbents. You don't question your own; you support them. If you are the president, you are the standard-bearer -- all hail to your name.
   Is this dangerous? Well, it goes against the thought that Americans will be defiant if wrongful authority comes along. In the truer spirit of America, if someone were to come along doing things that shouldn't be done, the citizens would revolt against it. They would say, Our forefathers put provisions in the Constitution for impeachment for a reason, and we are going to use them.
  But when a political party rules its members? No eternal vigilance, this time. No, Don't tread on me. No wary eye for someone who might come in and spoil the nation. Instead, eyes blink and eyes are covered. Eyes turn away from every wrong. So, if someone tries to impeach him and take him out of office, party loyalist -- already pledged in their hearts to support him -- are blinded from seeing the faults in their own.
   Party politics inherently supports its standard-bearer. Loyalty to the boss is somehow confused with patriotism.
   Simply put, party politics spawns devotion to its own. And, if ever a leader with tyrannical tendencies comes along and wants to plug into that devotion, nothing is to stop him.
   Such is America, circa 2020.

Support the Leader or Lose Your Office? What Country is This?

  I consider the efforts to censure Sen. Mitt Romney for his voting against President Trump. I think of the calls that he should resign, and the suggestion he should be recalled.
  In a dictatorship, all fall in line, or they lose their standing in the party and in the government. Have we reached a point where we are much the same? Support the head of state, or lose your office -- that has the familiar ring of what goes on in countries with dictators.

The Nation Reels Under a Flood of Accusations

   What can be done? What is to be done? The nation reels in grave accusations of political misdeeds, of corruption. I would guess that never in our history have investigations into so many government figures been suggested.  Joe Biden, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, James Comey, Robert Mueller . . . and others. Among the more serious of charges, the Clintons are accused of murdering, I don't know, maybe 30 people.
   Serial killers, that would make them.
   And, then we have our president. Long before he was elected, there was a line of things worth investigating. Do many weeks go by, without something new being seen that should be investigated?
  What do we do, investigate all of these?
  On one side, I think we should.
   On the other side, I think not. I wonder at a nation so engulfed in investigations that it fractures under the weight of them. Accusation after accusation, and investigating them only invites more accusations.
    Such a nation could truly shatter.
   I sat down to write this blog with the thought that everything deserves an investigation -- if for no other reason, than to clear the person of false accusation.
   If there is someone behind all the dissension in America -- the Russians or whoever -- I think they would be pleased to see us shatter under the weight of finger-pointing, lying about others and bringing false witness against each other.
   Thou shalt not bear false witness, says the Holy Code, but in a land of Christians where this commandment ought to be honored, we find it being shattered under the assault of those who do not know how to keep it.
   There are those who would tell you the gospel would heal this land. I do so believe it.
   I will end with the thought I began with. Never in our nation's history have we been plagued with such a host of so many political accusations. If we believe in foreign influence -- if we once believed Soviet Union propaganda was real and can see they have only mastered the art to a cunning level -- then shall we fall into their trap?
   Even if you do not believe in Russian propaganda, consider the Ten Commandments, and wonder if we as a nation are keeping that one.

Dictators Have Done This: They Have Had Their Political Foes Arrested

   "The Justice Department becomes a political hit squad for an unleashed president," reads the headline to an opinion piece in The Washington Post.
   And, I consider the similarity to what has happened in other countries, when someone has come to power, and set about having their political foes arrested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpIyW2S-WA

Our Nation Falls into Hands of Closest Thing We've had to a Dictator

  "Wow, this is amazing," I find myself whispering as I consider what is happening in our land, and  how President Trump and his followers are asserting wrongful power. Yes, I whisper those words upon seeing a story of how of how federal prosecutors of Roger Stone -- President Trump's longtime adviser -- have quickly changed their mind about how much prison time he should receive.
   Monday, they recommended seven to nine years. Tuesday, they changed directions, saying that would be, "extreme and excessive," and saying his prison time should be "far less."
   Upon the announcement, all four prosecutors in the Stone case withdrew from the case, and one of them resigned his office.
   What is going on in America? Have we fallen asleep? Can we not see the danger? Can we not see the wrong? Can we not see the pattern, and how it mirrors what has happened in countries we would not want to follow?
   Abuse of office? Of course! But, one impeachment effort has failed, and I do not expect someone to have the courage to stand up and suggest another one. We are so blinded by our love for this president that we see neither wrong nor danger.
   So, our nation falls into the hands of the closest thing we have ever had to a dictator.

'How Dare He?' They Ask; And, So Wonder Which Way We are Headed

  Mitt Romney voted to impeach the president? "How dare he?" Judge Jeanine asks. And, I wonder at the level of indignation raised against Romney for voting has he did. Now, it is normal enough to suggest someone voted wrongly.
   But, "How dare he? How could he?"  And, Judge Jeanine's indignation not alone. It is reflective of the wrath being poured out by Republicans all across our land. It is as if Romney had no right in all the world to vote the way he did.
   As I suggested, it is common to express dissatisfaction with someone's vote. But, this is different. It is more or less saying, "The gall of that man, that he should vote as he did!"
   Ask yourself what countries there are that do not allow you to vote, except for the leader? The old Soviet Union comes to mind. We have hardly reached that point, but we should be mindful of the direction we are headed.
  When a nation reaches the point that you have no right to vote the way you see it, that nation is marking time against its freedoms. When the populace hears Judge Jeanine, many adopt the same stance. And, the already echoing message that it is vice to oppose our president picks up steam with every voice like that of Judge Jeanine, and with every citizen who bows to such a voice.
   This message -- that it is wrong to oppose President Trump -- is being displayed, perhaps every day, in one way or another.  And we, like those under the spell of a pied-piper, are jumping in line to follow.

I Find no Great Fault with Pelosi's Reaction to the SOTU Address

  The world of Republicans is, it seems, aghast at Nancy Pelosi's conduct at the SOTU Address. She tore the speech up. She acted fidgety, or some such, and disrespectful.
  I'm not going to find great fault with her. Yes, it is good to be respectful. But, the right to oppose  those in authority is a hallmark of America. The right to express dissatisfaction and to protest, is an American right. What Pelosi did falls into this category. It was but a form of protest. She expressed her opinion by her physical reactions to the president's speech. I find no great fault in this. Let every person be allowed their opinions and be allowed to express them. Let us be allowed to express our discontent with the highest authority in the land. This is a freedom kings do not allow, but in America, we should stand up for it.
  What we should fear, is when our leaders start demanding reverence. What we should fear, is when it becomes an affront to the state to express disapproval of those who are in power.
  The erosion of our freedoms can start with such a thing as this. We speak of what Trump is doing to America; Well, look.

All 100 Senators have Right to Serve in the Impeachment Proceedings

   I have suggested we perhaps could winnow out biased Senators from casting votes in the impeachment process.
   Well, I think I probably was wrong.
   My thought was, the Sixth Amendment says all trials in America are to be before an impartial jury. Surely, we cannot consider trials where all the Republicans vote one way and all Democrats the other, to be providing such justice. There is no way that is impartial. Cannot we have some kind of jury selection, and winnow out the offending Senators, and sit only those most inclined to be impartial? I thought, perhaps we could.
  But, a more thorough reading of the Constitution seems to render me wrong. To begin with, there's this clause in Article II, Section 2, paragraph three: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury . . ."
  So, impeachments need not ever be by jury. The Sixth Amendment might say trials shall be by impartial juries, but the Senate isn't a jury, in the sense that the judge screens the candidates for the jury and seats them as such -- seats them as selected jury members. They are a jury, in actuality, for they do vote to convict or acquit, and that is what juries do. But, they do not arrive at their position through the normal process by which jury members are selected.
  Then, there is this, Article 1, Section 3, paragraph six: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
  There are 100 members in the Senate. Members are members. When it says, "two thirds of the Members," the word "Members" seems to be referring to all of them, the full Senate. Every senator is invited.
  I do cast a backward eye at what I have just said. After, "two thirds of the Members," there is one more word, "present." Does that leave open the notion that you could have a jury selection and the ones not selected would be not "present"?
  My judgment is, no. I am thinking all 100 Senate members have the right to serve in the impeachment proceedings.

(Edited for clarity Feb. 9, 2020.)

Constitution did not Limit Impeachment to Codified Crimes

   Impeachments are for more that statutory crimes. If you reflect on Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, you will see evidence of this.
   "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
   In other words, Congress can only remove you from office, but if you have committed a statutory crime, that remains the purview of the regular court system.
   It seems rather likely the Founding Fathers recognized the things presidents might be impeached for could include things that didn't fall under statutory law. Therefore, they only gave the Senate power to remove from office. If statutory crimes were the only concern, you could send the offending president through the normal criminal courts, then have the Senate hearing on whether to impeach. And, no trial at all would be needed. All that would have been covered in the regular trial, and you would just be voting on whether to impeach.
   And, if no trial would be needed, then what of this? "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments," says Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. This indicates a trial shall take place.
   The phrase. "High crimes and misdemeanors," has been in English impeachment law for perhaps 400 years. The impeachments often were for abuse of office. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said the U.S. impeachment was modeled after that of England. Knowing this, and combining it with consideration of what I have written above, it seems clear impeachments are for more than statutory crimes.
   Said Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, in explaining his vote for impeachment:
   "The historic meaning of the words high crimes and misdemeanors, the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convinced me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason."

Holmes Testified Trump Changed the Focus from Democracy to Politics

  This witness -- David Holmes -- testifies that the direction of foreign policy in the Ukraine changed from promoting democracy, and opposing Russian aggression, to promoting the president's own political needs . . . and that this was done on a channel of direction directly from the White House. If that is not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is. If this is not considered sufficient evidence (since there is also supporting evidence) to convict, what is? Read what Holmes testifies during the House hearings:
   Holmes says that under Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the effort was to fight corruption in Ukraine. Then, he says:
  "Beginning in March 2019, the situation at the Embassy and in Ukraine changed dramatically. Specifically, our diplomatic policy that had been focused on supporting Ukrainian democratic reform and resistance to Russian aggression became overshadowed by a political agenda being promoted by Rudy Giuliani and a cadre of officials operating with a direct channel to the White House."

\

The Trump Trial Conveniently Skipped this Critical Step

  Where was the jury deliberation? Did the Trump impeachment trial contain this critical part of the trial process?
  We have discussed how the Senate departed from the model used in trials all across America. The typical trial includes, (1.) Jury selection, (2.) Opening statements, (3.) Witness testimony and cross-examination, (4.) Closing arguments, (5.) Jury instruction, and, (6.) Jury deliberation and verdict.
  How far our Senate departed from this model. It is used in our trials all up and down and across the country, but it was not good enough for the Senate.
   Tonight, it hit me how critical the jury deliberation was. This is the time when the jury members discuss and review and weigh the evidence. It is the moment when they brought to be accountable for the evidence. One jury members says, What about this? And, the jury members have to respond as to why that is or is not important.
   The judicial system, with the jury deliberation, forces the jurors to justify their votes. Without it, they can just say, Well, I'm going to vote against impeachment. That's it.
  They need no explanation, no justification. The trial process is stripped of accountability. The facts of the case do not need to matter, because you are not required to respond to them.
   We spend hundreds of years establishing our trial process. We use it in our trials throughout the land. It is a process honed through years long forgotten, and it provides justice.
  If you drop the deliberation step out of the trial, you strip justice of one of its most valuable components.

The Side Shows Received More Attention than the Facts

   Me? I'm sitting here wondering if there was an effort to focus on the side shows instead of the facts.  I speak of the impeachment trial. I think of how there are those who conspire to affect American opinion. I think of all the coverage, and of how it seemed to have but skimmed the surface as far as what evidence there was. Instead, stories on how Nancy Pelosi used different colored pens to sign the articles of impeachment, and on how she ripped up her copy of the SOTU speech.
  Those type of stories have nothing to do with whether President Trump was guilty. If you can get the people discussing these type of stories, you can steer them away from learning the facts of the case. Not only do you keep them focused on something else, other than the facts, but you work them up to anger and hatred against those who were prosecuting the case.
  Would that the coverage would have zeroed in on the evidence, so we could have discussed it. I think of all those who insist there was no evidence. Well, if the news doesn't mention it much, it leaves the impression there is none.
  We have been told their are those trying to influence our opinions from afar. We have been warned.  I do not think it wrong to consider these warnings. I would guess they probably are masters at influencing our media. We should imagine if such an effort does exist -- and it does so seem this effort is real -- it will, indeed, try to steer the media away from stories it doesn't want covered and onto stories that help its cause.
   These masters of deceit have scored their victory. They have kept the public from knowing the facts of the case. And, if we bring them up now, after the impeachment process is over, they will suggest it is time to move on, time to put this behind us, time to heal as a nation and support the president.

Living Past 100 and the Stars Who do so

  With the passing of Kirk Douglas at age 103, I search and find there are a number of living celebrities who are centurions.
   Rock stars? Not so much. They do not seem to have long lives. I see a list that says Fats Domino is the oldest, only to learn that the list is old, and he died in 1917, at age 89.
   I wonder about athletes. I don't know whether there are many, but I do learn John Henderson, who played football at the University of Texas, is still alive at 107. In fact, his wife, who is but one year younger, is still alive, making them the world's oldest-living couple. That both are still alive would seem to indicate there is something they shared in living together that has led them to long lives.
  Lack of stress? That's my guess.
  I also wonder about runners, since I like to run, and learn Fauja Singh is the only person ever known to have run a marathon after age 100. And, at age 108, he still walks five miles a day. I do not know whether Singh ran when he was younger, and that is really what we wonder. Does a life of running lead to death? Singh is an indication, but we would need to know if there are many centurions among those who ran a lot when they were younger. At any rate, Singh's having run a marathon at age 101 didn't kill him, as he remains alive seven years later.
   As I start to end this blog, I go back, again, and search for musicians. And, the oldest I find is Abdul "Duke" Fakir, the last surviving member of the Four Tops, who is still alive at 84. Of Ethiopian and Bangladeshi ancestry, I note he ran track and played football and basketball while in high school.

 The wiles of a woman 

are the ways of the world.

'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' Means Abuse of Office and Trust

   How heavy did the Democrats drive this point during the Senate trial: "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term that had been used in England for 400 years. It does not refer just to chargeable laws. No, in English law, it referred to, at least as much as anything else, abuse of official power and trust.
   Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said English tradition was the model for what was written in the U.S. Constitution.
   If President Trump abused his power, he should be impeached. The Constitution provides a way for this to be done because the founding fathers did not want presidents to abuse their power. If you support the Constitution, you use its provisions to do what is right. Abuse of power doesn't rise to an impeachable offense? In a nation where morals don't matter, maybe not. But, in clearer reality, yes, abuse of power is a definite wrong. Some might say it is no big deal, but I (and others) suggest it is.
   The Democrats should have been emphasizing and repeating all this during the trial. They should have done so to the point that the Republicans were not able to fall back on the notion that Trump's was not a specific crime, and was no big deal, anyway.
   The Republicans had the polished lawyers. The Democrats? Did they even employ any? They certainly were not smart enough to drive this simple point home.
   Of a truth, they should not have had to. The Republican senators should have studied up enough, on their own, to have known this. I think of at least one, our senator here in Utah, Mike Lee, who is known as a constitutional expert. Did he know all this? And, how many of them knew it, but set it aside?

With the washing of the waves comes 

the weathering of the rocks

  Consider Maine Senator Susan Collins, who today announced she will vote to acquit the president. I think of the pressure from her home state, and how polling has said she is the most unpopular senator in the nation. To wash away some ill-respect, is she choosing to please voters by voting for acquittal?
   The washing of the waves, in this case, the pressure from the public, wears on a person.
   But, mostly I think of  this -- what she said as her decision made the news
   "This decision is not about whether you like or dislike this President . . ."
   Quite often, in discussing the impeachment, someone would say the only reason we wanted to impeach Trump was because we hated him. This quote from Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, is among the many suggesting it is all about hatred. "This vote, this day has nothing to do with Ukraine. This vote, this day is about one thing and one thing only: They hate this President."
   Time after time, we heard such quotes. They discredit honest belief that the president should be impeached, by insisting the only reason for impeachment is hatred.
   As if you can't honestly believe he did something wrong. It must be just because you hate him. There can be no other reason. The Republicans thrust line of argument upon us, repeating it so continuously that it echoed throughout the nation, and everyone wondered if the impeachment had nothing to do with whether he did something wrong, but only with whether we hated the President. Sen. Collins picked it up, and it may have influenced her decision to vote for acquittal.
  With the washing of the waves comes the weathering of the rocks.

What if the Muslim Migrants are of the House of Israel?

  Tonight, in a hurry to write and not remembering all the things I want to write about, I rush to get something in and fall back on what I have been reading in my scripture study.
  Pardon me for discussing religion.
  I think of the current migration going on in the world, and of how some from Muslim and African countries are going to Germany and Scandinavia. We don't think of those from Africa as being part of the gathering of Israel, but it there a possibility that is true? We suppose we are in the last days. A lot of migration is going on . . . and a share of it is to Germany and Scandinavia.
  The Book of Mormon pages I read yesterday (and they included verses from Isaiah, although I think I found this not in the Isaiah chapters) speak of the blood of Israel being scattered among all nations and all people.
   Did you get that? All. All meaning all, that includes Africa. And, if we say among all people, that includes the Muslims.
   I found myself wondering if the Israelites could have went to Germany, then to Africa and to the Muslim countries.
   Well, tonight, I opened a Wikipedia article to read how at the time of Julius Caesar, Germany was considered unconquered territory. I was in a hurry to get ready for bed, so I didn't read far into the article. But, I assume the Romans went to Germany with the thought of conquering it. Now, Israel was part of the Roman Empire, so it would not be impractical to take those of Israel along, or send them ahead to set up a presence of people.
  As I thought to close the article, I quickly went back to it and my eyes fell on a sentence saying, "Germany joined the other powers in colonial expansion in Africa and the Pacific."
  Now, this was not until the mid-1800s. Is that too late? Were there other, earlier German excursions? Or, even if it did come that late, could it have brought those to Africa whose descendants just a century or so later are returning? Who knows.
   I do know this: The scripture says the House of Israel was scattered among all nations and among all people. That includes Africa and it also includes the people we know as Muslims.
   And, the scriptures say they will be returned to the lands -- plural -- of their inheritance. Could Scandinavia and Germany be among those lands of inheritance?
   It would be ironic if some of the areas looking down their noses on the migrants coming into their countries, and considering them as, perhaps, evil people, are actually rejecting the Lord's chosen people.
   Lest I need to remind you, the scriptures say these people of the House of Israel will be despised (or words to that effect) of all nations. (Does it say all nations?) The migrants of our day certainly are hated and rejected.
   I do not say all this is correct. I do not know. It is but one possible scenario. I do wonder, though. I do wonder.

A Day When Lies are Peddled as Truth, and Truth Peddled as Lies

  The Trump impeachment is important for a number of reasons. It is important that justice be served. It is important that the trail be conducted in accordance with the Constitution. It is important that the judicial system we have be honored. It is important that the Senate conduct itself with impartiality.
   But, as important as everything else, this might be the most important: It is important that the American people not be duped. False narratives abound. Falsehoods are having a heyday. Disinformation is being peddled as truth. Those with the lies are upset with those who are honest and accusing them of doing the lying.
   Lies are not only being peddled, but the truth is being peddled as lies. 

Lest We Forget the Evidence Right in the Phone Call

   Look back, again. What evidence for impeachment is there in that July 25 phone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy?
  Early in the conversation, President Trump makes a point to remind Zelenskyy what the U.S. does for that country.  "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot.of time.  . . . the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. . . ."
  Do we attach any thought to President Trump's using the word, "reciprocal"? That suggests he wants them to reflect on what they are doing to return the favor of the U.S. being good to them.
   Zelenskyy makes a point to suggest his country will cooperate with whatever President Trump might want from him in order that it receive more.
". . . The United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine," Zelenskyy says. "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes . . ."
   He makes it clear what he wants, and he makes it clear he is willing cooperate -- willing to do whatever President Trump wants in order to get the aid. The 2016 election was part of that.
   So, President Trump then tells him what he would like Zelenskyy to do. "I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."
   Zelenskyy's reply? "Yes, it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier." What was mentioned earlier? All the things the U.S. has done for Ukraine, the military aid and such. So, Zelenskyy is saying that the investigation into Crowdstrike is important because of the military aid, and the things the U.S. does for his country. "For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation," Zelenskyy says.
   Open to any future cooperation? Does that not translate into, You do this for me, and I'll do that for you? Quid pro quo? You be the judge.
  "We are great friends and you, Mr. President, have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic Partnership," Zelenskyy says. "Strategic partnership"? They have discussed what each side needs to do. They haven't specified that that is what the partnership is dependent on, but it is the reflection of what they have discussed.  Zelenskyy then further makes it clear that he will investigate.  "I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly," he says.
  Now, so far we have not mentioned whether Biden was mentioned in the conversation, I don't know if I missed this when I read the transcript, but I m finding this quote from Forbes.com article. This is President Trump speaking: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me."

The strangers to love -- those who do not know it -- 

are the ones who need it most. 

A fear of the future 

chases its brightness away. 

The spirit of fear 

is the spirit of failure.

Those who need your friendship the most

are often the ones who frighten you away. 

Or, could use the word, "help." Those who need your friendship the most are often the ones who frighten you away.

The judgments of others are the trials of life. 

But it remains more important to understand than to be understood. 

Or, just, It is more important to understand than to be understood.

Have the Trump Trial at the Same Time as One for Biden

  If it is everything the Republicans wanted, then what if we would have put Joe Biden into the same trial as Trump? It would be two trials going on at the same time, and Biden hasn't even gone through an investigative stage. Still, if it would please the Republicans, perhaps we should have done it. Or, still should. Don't wrap up the trial, but instead insert the Biden accusations and make it a full wrap that will please the Republicans.
  It would, perhaps, be a first in the history of trials in America -- having two trials simultaneously even thought the defendants were not involved in the same alleged offense. The two situations are related, but if Biden committed Bribery, Trump did not share in that crime. And, if Trump committed a high crime and misdemeanor, Biden did not share in that particular high crime or misdemeanor. When you do see two people in the same trail, it is because they are accused of committing a crime together. This isn't that.
   But, justice will have no chance without this. The Republicans will not allow witnesses against Trump unless they can also have witnesses against Biden. Opening things up so they can try Biden is the only way to get them to even half-heartedly look at the accusations against Trump.

No Witness to be Found for Trump, but the Senate Acquits Him, Anyway

   Is there even such a thing as a witness in Trump's favor? Is so much as one person who could testify that they were in position to know whether the President dangled money before the Ukrainians in exchange for going after Biden, and, no, it just didn't happen? Is there even so much as just one person in all the White House, or in all the diplomatic world dealing with Ukraine who could say, I would have known if that was going down, and, it just didn't happen. If there is such a person, why haven't they stepped forward.
   No? Not a single person to be found to exonerate the President? None?
  Can we find just one person who would have been willing to come to the Senate trial, and testify under oath on the President's behalf? An oath is a serious thing. If we put them under oath, would they be willing to say they know the accusations are false? Why was no such person found?
   It leads me to the conclusion that the President is, indeed, guilty as charged.
   If you have a trial, and you cannot produce a single witness in your favor, how do you ever get acquitted? Well, President Trump is pulling it off. It would be impossible in any honest court of law.     We speak of how this is the first Senate impeachment trial that did not allow witnesses. Well, it is also surely one of the few trials in all of America's history in which no witness could be found for the defendant, and yet he was set free. The Senate court is letting the President off, anyway.

The Silence is Deafening

  Set aside the fact that not one person has stepped forward offering to testify in court on the President's behalf. It seems if there was such a person, they would at least step forward in the media. Why are we not hearing from a single soul who steps forward to say, I was in the President's inner circle on the Ukrainian affair. I knew what was going on, and I'm here to tell you the President did not withhold funds unless they went after Joe Biden or his son Hunter.
   As they say, the silence is deafening.