I believe the curfew in Salt Lake City last night was beneficial. The violence and destruction did come to an end after 40-some-odd were arrested. But, with a curfew put in place lasting all the way till Monday morning, protesters are now left without a forum in which to protest at the very moment when protesting is what should be being done.
Yes, the violence of some has taken away the right to protest from others. And shamed them.
Restricted protesting? Protesting once a license is granted? It may sound at odds with the very concept of protesting, but such thing is better than no protest at all. Have a gate where you can enter, where you pledge to do no violence, nor destruction, nor harm. Restrict the protesting to just one site, so any policing needing to be done can be done without chasing all over town.
Also, invite everyone to come into the police stations and city halls and write statements protesting what is happening in our nation.
Would this work -- Have police officers and high elected officials available so you can just come in and sit down with them and express your grievances. Protesters wanting to be heard should love the opportunity to present their views right to the faces of the policy-makers.
Sunday, May 31, 2020
We Should be Wary of the Forces of Chaos
Among those doing the looting and plundering are those who are anarchists. Among those slurring the police are those seeking chaos more than justice for George Floyd. There runs a strand among the protesters that would -- could -- shake our nation to its very foundations.
The cause of supporting George Floyd is about as honorable of a cause as there can be. But, that cause is being hijacked by those who revel in the destruction of America. They would deprive us of police protection. They would ransack and pillage until chaos is theirs.
They would bring our nation to its very knees.
Our nation has been praying against the threat of COVID-19. It should also appeal to God against the rising chaos threatening our nation in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Perhaps all the violence and looting will soon subside.
Still, when we speak of eternal vigilance, it should include moments such as this. Though the violence and chaos might or might not reach much further than what we are experiencing at current, a wary nation should be mindful. Even should peace quickly come, we should be mindful of the forces of chaos at play, for they will not have gone away. If we are but seeing their shadow now, we should realize they are sure to rise their specter again.
The cause of supporting George Floyd is about as honorable of a cause as there can be. But, that cause is being hijacked by those who revel in the destruction of America. They would deprive us of police protection. They would ransack and pillage until chaos is theirs.
They would bring our nation to its very knees.
Our nation has been praying against the threat of COVID-19. It should also appeal to God against the rising chaos threatening our nation in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Perhaps all the violence and looting will soon subside.
Still, when we speak of eternal vigilance, it should include moments such as this. Though the violence and chaos might or might not reach much further than what we are experiencing at current, a wary nation should be mindful. Even should peace quickly come, we should be mindful of the forces of chaos at play, for they will not have gone away. If we are but seeing their shadow now, we should realize they are sure to rise their specter again.
Saturday, May 30, 2020
It isn't Hard to Notice Racist Tendencies, So Fire Those Who have Them
Nobody listens to little ole' me, we often say at times like this. Hey, I do have the answer to all the police violence. Yes, I honestly believe if we just did this, police violence would take a dive.
Fire them. Fire the bad cops -- before they do their damage. And, train the rest that police violence is wrong.
Those things can be done.
What if we were to interview every officer in America? Ask them if they believe black lives matter. If they can't say black lives matter, yes, they ought to be fired. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that black lives matter. And, if you can't say it, there's danger you have a racist attitude.
Derek Chauvin had been a security officer. He didn't like working where a lot of African Americans were, though. And, when he did, he would mace them if the slightest problem came up and call the police on the slightest provocation. He wasn't like that for events where African Americans were not dominant.
If we had background checked him -- if we had did much checking at all -- that would have come up. Such officers need to be dismissed from the force.
Talk to their fellow officers. Talk to their family and friends. Find out what attitudes they have. Should someone be shot if they enter your property, no provocation other than that they are there? Find out what their inclinations are and whether they would pull a trigger either too quickly, or because of race.
It usually isn't hard to notice someone with racist tendencies. So, identify them, and fire them.
Fire them. Fire the bad cops -- before they do their damage. And, train the rest that police violence is wrong.
Those things can be done.
What if we were to interview every officer in America? Ask them if they believe black lives matter. If they can't say black lives matter, yes, they ought to be fired. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment that black lives matter. And, if you can't say it, there's danger you have a racist attitude.
Derek Chauvin had been a security officer. He didn't like working where a lot of African Americans were, though. And, when he did, he would mace them if the slightest problem came up and call the police on the slightest provocation. He wasn't like that for events where African Americans were not dominant.
If we had background checked him -- if we had did much checking at all -- that would have come up. Such officers need to be dismissed from the force.
Talk to their fellow officers. Talk to their family and friends. Find out what attitudes they have. Should someone be shot if they enter your property, no provocation other than that they are there? Find out what their inclinations are and whether they would pull a trigger either too quickly, or because of race.
It usually isn't hard to notice someone with racist tendencies. So, identify them, and fire them.
Friday, May 29, 2020
Whether Trump Should be in the President's Chair is not being Addressed
America's first illegitimate president, the first to be placed in office even though evidence seems to indicate interference put him there.
Donald J. Trump.
And, for all the turmoil Donald Trump has had, this is a matter that doesn't get much attention. This did not get properly addressed in Mueller's Report. It was not the topic of concern in the impeachment hearings.
No, while a person is sitting in the president's chair who probably doesn't even have the right to be there, hardly anyone is even discussing it.
But, turn to a couple prominent voices who are. First, turn to former President Jimmy Carter.
"I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016," Carter said in June of 2019. He lost the election, and he was put into office because Russians interfered on his behalf."
This is a former president, whose office comes with a high degree of respect, making a very serious charge.
Asked by historian Jon Meacham if that means he believes Trump is an "illegitimate president," Carter responded, "Basically, what I said, I can't retract."
Then, there are the words of James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence. "It stretches credulity to think the Russians didn't turn the election," he has said.
Someone who has been at the highest level of our intelligence. And, he is saying, "It stretches credulity to think the Russians didn't turn the election." And, that is drawing hardly a penny's worth of attention?
Little attention was given to what Carter said. Little attention to what Clapper said. There have been no congressional hearings nor even much if any discussion in Congress. Little outrage from the American public. No focus, at all, in America over this. The large matter of whether Donald Trump should even be sitting in the president's chair is not even being addressed.
(Note: Edited and parts reworded 5/30/20)
Donald J. Trump.
And, for all the turmoil Donald Trump has had, this is a matter that doesn't get much attention. This did not get properly addressed in Mueller's Report. It was not the topic of concern in the impeachment hearings.
No, while a person is sitting in the president's chair who probably doesn't even have the right to be there, hardly anyone is even discussing it.
But, turn to a couple prominent voices who are. First, turn to former President Jimmy Carter.
"I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016," Carter said in June of 2019. He lost the election, and he was put into office because Russians interfered on his behalf."
This is a former president, whose office comes with a high degree of respect, making a very serious charge.
Asked by historian Jon Meacham if that means he believes Trump is an "illegitimate president," Carter responded, "Basically, what I said, I can't retract."
Then, there are the words of James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence. "It stretches credulity to think the Russians didn't turn the election," he has said.
Someone who has been at the highest level of our intelligence. And, he is saying, "It stretches credulity to think the Russians didn't turn the election." And, that is drawing hardly a penny's worth of attention?
Little attention was given to what Carter said. Little attention to what Clapper said. There have been no congressional hearings nor even much if any discussion in Congress. Little outrage from the American public. No focus, at all, in America over this. The large matter of whether Donald Trump should even be sitting in the president's chair is not even being addressed.
(Note: Edited and parts reworded 5/30/20)
Thursday, May 28, 2020
The Riot that Founded a Nation
As the windows are shattered on police cars, and product looted from Walmarts, and fires set here and there in Minneapolis, and the protesters are decried for the destruction and violence, consider this, and I quote from Charles M. Blow, columnist for The New York Times:
"It is estimated that the Boston Tea Party, the riot that gave birth to this country, resulted in $1.7 million dollars (in today's dollars) in property damage (tea). I'm just going to leave this right here for whoever needs to read it."
So, the question becomes, If all the looting and arson are Minneapolis are wrong, if we decry those protesters for destroying property, then was it not just as wrong for our founding fathers to be destroying property? I mean, $1.7 million worth of tea just poured into the sea amounts to a lot of money.
The Constitution (in the First Amendment) is clear on "the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Yes, it should be noted that it says, "peaceably," and looting and burning don't amount to that.
One still wonders, though, why it should be okay for the founding fathers to express their grievances with the destruction of property while those in Minneapolis are derided for doing the same. For my part, I am still thinking it out. I'm leaning towards the thought that even though the founding fathers did it, it is wrong.
"It is estimated that the Boston Tea Party, the riot that gave birth to this country, resulted in $1.7 million dollars (in today's dollars) in property damage (tea). I'm just going to leave this right here for whoever needs to read it."
So, the question becomes, If all the looting and arson are Minneapolis are wrong, if we decry those protesters for destroying property, then was it not just as wrong for our founding fathers to be destroying property? I mean, $1.7 million worth of tea just poured into the sea amounts to a lot of money.
The Constitution (in the First Amendment) is clear on "the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Yes, it should be noted that it says, "peaceably," and looting and burning don't amount to that.
One still wonders, though, why it should be okay for the founding fathers to express their grievances with the destruction of property while those in Minneapolis are derided for doing the same. For my part, I am still thinking it out. I'm leaning towards the thought that even though the founding fathers did it, it is wrong.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Scour Through Our Police Agencies to Root Out the Bad Apples
George Floyd -- a black George Floyd. Crumbled on the ground, a police officer's knee on his neck as he pleads to be allowed to breathe. Witnesses pleading with the officer to remove his knee.
He dies. And, a nation is outraged -- again.
With this happening time and time again, we should see the need to root out officers who have tendencies that will lead to such brutality. We need to assess, audit, investigate, background check, and reference-check every officer in America. Sit them down -- all of them. Ask them what their feelings are towards black people. Ask them when they think they should use violence. Etc. Ask if they have heard other officers say anything that would reflect a bad attitude on their part. Go to family members, past spouses, co-workers, etc.
If this sounds like a little too much, it isn't. We have a problem, and the only way to clean it up is to root it out. Scour through and identify every officer who might have a sour attitude.
And, fire them.
He dies. And, a nation is outraged -- again.
With this happening time and time again, we should see the need to root out officers who have tendencies that will lead to such brutality. We need to assess, audit, investigate, background check, and reference-check every officer in America. Sit them down -- all of them. Ask them what their feelings are towards black people. Ask them when they think they should use violence. Etc. Ask if they have heard other officers say anything that would reflect a bad attitude on their part. Go to family members, past spouses, co-workers, etc.
If this sounds like a little too much, it isn't. We have a problem, and the only way to clean it up is to root it out. Scour through and identify every officer who might have a sour attitude.
And, fire them.
Pound in the Message that Black Lives Matter to Every Police Force
There comes a day when you say, Enough is enough to the police violence. And, how do you stop it? You clear out all the officers with harmful tendencies.
Then, you retrain the rest, teaching them when to and when not to resort to violence. Teaching them that just because they enforce the law, doesn't mean they are the law. Teaching them to embrace the Black Lives Matter mandra. Etc.
And, once they've been trained internally, don't suppose that once is enough. Bring in dignitaries, celebrities, religious leaders or whoever you can to reinforce the message. Ensure the message is repeated every year, if not more often than that. And, don't just say, "Okay, everybody over here for give minutes. We've got to go through this to be in accordance with the rules. It'll only take a minute." Make it a dinner or banquet or something special.
Nothing taught is nothing learned. If we can see the under-flowings of unhealthy attitudes in our police agencies, we need to make sure the lesson gets taught.
Then, you retrain the rest, teaching them when to and when not to resort to violence. Teaching them that just because they enforce the law, doesn't mean they are the law. Teaching them to embrace the Black Lives Matter mandra. Etc.
And, once they've been trained internally, don't suppose that once is enough. Bring in dignitaries, celebrities, religious leaders or whoever you can to reinforce the message. Ensure the message is repeated every year, if not more often than that. And, don't just say, "Okay, everybody over here for give minutes. We've got to go through this to be in accordance with the rules. It'll only take a minute." Make it a dinner or banquet or something special.
Nothing taught is nothing learned. If we can see the under-flowings of unhealthy attitudes in our police agencies, we need to make sure the lesson gets taught.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
'It Can't Happen Here' Might be Happening all Over Again
Donald Trump prefigured in a novel 85 years ago? Read the blurb advertising the book on the back cover of It Can't Happen Here:
"Vulgar, almost illiterate, a public liar easily detected . . . He was an actor of genius.
"A vain, outlandish, anti-immigrant, fear-mongering demagogue runs for president of the United States -- and wins. Sinclair Lewis's 1935 bestseller is the story of Buzz Windrip, who promises voters that he will make America proud and prosperous once more, but takes the country down a far darker path. As the new regime slides into authoritarianism, newspaper editor Doremus Jessup can't believe it will last -- but is he right? This cautionary tale of liberal complacency in the face of populist tyranny shows it really can happen."
The book's plot obviously is going to differ from the history of what has happened with Trump, and there are certainly differences. Windrip is a quasi socialist, for one. But, go ahead and gulp at the similarities. A populist runs for office, billing himself as an anti-politician promising to return America To greatness. He gets elected, reduces the influence of the other two branches of government, throws in jail those in the government who stand in his way, holds big, passionate rallies, and whips up opposition to the "lies" of the mainstream press.
He declares Americans,"the greatest Race on the face of this old Earth." When he decries the mainstream press, his supporters embrace the message and also turn against and join in the hatred of the media. Those accused of crimes against government appear before kangaroo courts. And, despite the incursions the charismatic Windrip takes against the other branches of government, the majority of people approve of these measures, seeing them as necessary to put the nation back on the right path.
When someone expresses concern that the nation is sliding toward fascism, the reply is that that simply can't happen here, not in America. Thus the title of the book.
Donald Trump, meet Buzz Windrip; Buzz Windrip, meet Donald Trump.
The book sold out on Amazon and other places at the time of Trump's election in 2016.
"Vulgar, almost illiterate, a public liar easily detected . . . He was an actor of genius.
"A vain, outlandish, anti-immigrant, fear-mongering demagogue runs for president of the United States -- and wins. Sinclair Lewis's 1935 bestseller is the story of Buzz Windrip, who promises voters that he will make America proud and prosperous once more, but takes the country down a far darker path. As the new regime slides into authoritarianism, newspaper editor Doremus Jessup can't believe it will last -- but is he right? This cautionary tale of liberal complacency in the face of populist tyranny shows it really can happen."
The book's plot obviously is going to differ from the history of what has happened with Trump, and there are certainly differences. Windrip is a quasi socialist, for one. But, go ahead and gulp at the similarities. A populist runs for office, billing himself as an anti-politician promising to return America To greatness. He gets elected, reduces the influence of the other two branches of government, throws in jail those in the government who stand in his way, holds big, passionate rallies, and whips up opposition to the "lies" of the mainstream press.
He declares Americans,"the greatest Race on the face of this old Earth." When he decries the mainstream press, his supporters embrace the message and also turn against and join in the hatred of the media. Those accused of crimes against government appear before kangaroo courts. And, despite the incursions the charismatic Windrip takes against the other branches of government, the majority of people approve of these measures, seeing them as necessary to put the nation back on the right path.
When someone expresses concern that the nation is sliding toward fascism, the reply is that that simply can't happen here, not in America. Thus the title of the book.
Donald Trump, meet Buzz Windrip; Buzz Windrip, meet Donald Trump.
The book sold out on Amazon and other places at the time of Trump's election in 2016.
Monday, May 25, 2020
A Dizzying Series of Unprecedented Court Moves
Never in our nation's history, I would guess, has there been such a series of happenings in a court case -- bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, one after another -- that are each virtually unprecedented.
When you get done reading this, decide for yourself if all this does not portend as an ominous warning that foundations of our nation are being dissembled right before our eyes. Our very judicial system is being assaulted.
Bang one: A person having twice confessed to a crime and pleaded guilty, the confessions going to two different judges, then, with only the sentencing remaining, coming back and saying, Wait a minute. You tricked me. I've changed my mind. I just figured out that I'm innocent after all.
Mind you Michael Flynn repeatedly assured Judge Sullivan that he had not been tricked. He was sure of what he was doing. And, somehow at this late juncture he wants to reverse course?
How often in the annuals of high-profile cases in America has that ever happened? I venture to say, Never.
Do not let it go unnoticed that if he assured the judge repeatedly that the FBI had not tricked him and that he had, indeed, lied about his communications with the Russians, then that means he was giving his word on that. If he comes back and changes his story, he either lied when he pleaded guilty or he is lying now.
Bang two: The conviction is on the boards. The defendant has pleaded guilty. Only sentencing remains. And, at this point the prosecution comes in and says, We want to drop the case. It is not like this is at the beginning of the case, or even somewhere in the middle, and the prosecution suddenly realizes they don't have enough evidence or supposes their case is faulty. No. They've already won the case.
And, now they come back and say, This Michael Flynn is a gem. What were we even thinking to even be prosecuting him? We were wrong from the git-go. Shame on us.
Has this ever happened, in the annuals of American jurisprudence? If it has, it surely is rare. I've not yet heard of another such case.
Consider this: The American judicial system was built on three components: a prosecution that fights for conviction, a defense that fights against conviction, and a judge that determines which is just. If the prosecution suddenly joins forces with the defense, or if the prosecution suddenly gains authority over the judge, your whole system of justice comes tumbling down, doesn't it?
Bang three: The judge looks for someone to take over the case for the prosecutor. It is like the D.A.'s office is refusing to prosecute a case, so the judge looks to find someone else. Now, there are a lot of friends-of-the-court cases; Yes, there are a lot of times when friends of the court are involved. But, has ever a friend of the court taken up and carried on a case when the government stepped away and declined to pursue the case and wanted charges dropped?
Remember, this is set up by the fact that of the three components of the court -- Prosecution, Defense, and Judge -- the Prosecution had refused to fulfill its role, leaving only a Defense and a Judge, so the Judge was simply seeking to restore the system. So, Judge Sullivan appointed retired New York federal judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department's request to dismiss the charge against Flynn.
Bang four: While a judge is reviewing whether to grant a motion to drop a case, a federal appeals court panel comes along and says, Time's up. You better explain to us why you're taking so much time. Now, once cases are decided the common procedure is to appeal. Obviously that is normal. But, for the appellate court to step in before a decision has even been rendered? It simply is highly unusual for a higher court to step in before the lower court has been had a chance to make up its mind in the first place. Unprecedented? I would not be surprised.
Nor should it go unnoticed that pressure is being placed on Judge Sullivan as to what his should be. The insinuation behind saying, Hurry up and come to your decision, is that, And, you better decide to drop the case. Actually, it might not even be an insinuation. The higher court may be demanding Sullivan drop the case.
Political pressure in there somewhere? Does President Trump want a certain decision, and is he is having his AG pressure Judge Sullivan? Donald Trump has made in his presidency a career of obstructing justice and has gotten away with it every time. This certainly smells of more meddling in a way that prevents justice and instead allows one of his cronies to go free.
Bang five: A judge hires a lawyer to defend his right to be ruling in a case. He's weighing what his decision is going to be, and he hires a lawyer to back him up and say he had the right to be making that decision. Has ever a judge done this? Highly unusual, at best, if not completely unprecedented.
At the end of this week, Judge Sullivan hired Beth Wilkinson to defend him in his decision to the federal appeals court.
Look at the whole of what is going on. Never in American history has a president so abused his powers this way. Never has a president so dismantled our judicial system. Never has one made justice not a matter of right and wrong, but whether you were loyal to him.
And, now they come back and say, This Michael Flynn is a gem. What were we even thinking to even be prosecuting him? We were wrong from the git-go. Shame on us.
Has this ever happened, in the annuals of American jurisprudence? If it has, it surely is rare. I've not yet heard of another such case.
Consider this: The American judicial system was built on three components: a prosecution that fights for conviction, a defense that fights against conviction, and a judge that determines which is just. If the prosecution suddenly joins forces with the defense, or if the prosecution suddenly gains authority over the judge, your whole system of justice comes tumbling down, doesn't it?
Bang three: The judge looks for someone to take over the case for the prosecutor. It is like the D.A.'s office is refusing to prosecute a case, so the judge looks to find someone else. Now, there are a lot of friends-of-the-court cases; Yes, there are a lot of times when friends of the court are involved. But, has ever a friend of the court taken up and carried on a case when the government stepped away and declined to pursue the case and wanted charges dropped?
Remember, this is set up by the fact that of the three components of the court -- Prosecution, Defense, and Judge -- the Prosecution had refused to fulfill its role, leaving only a Defense and a Judge, so the Judge was simply seeking to restore the system. So, Judge Sullivan appointed retired New York federal judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department's request to dismiss the charge against Flynn.
Bang four: While a judge is reviewing whether to grant a motion to drop a case, a federal appeals court panel comes along and says, Time's up. You better explain to us why you're taking so much time. Now, once cases are decided the common procedure is to appeal. Obviously that is normal. But, for the appellate court to step in before a decision has even been rendered? It simply is highly unusual for a higher court to step in before the lower court has been had a chance to make up its mind in the first place. Unprecedented? I would not be surprised.
Nor should it go unnoticed that pressure is being placed on Judge Sullivan as to what his should be. The insinuation behind saying, Hurry up and come to your decision, is that, And, you better decide to drop the case. Actually, it might not even be an insinuation. The higher court may be demanding Sullivan drop the case.
Political pressure in there somewhere? Does President Trump want a certain decision, and is he is having his AG pressure Judge Sullivan? Donald Trump has made in his presidency a career of obstructing justice and has gotten away with it every time. This certainly smells of more meddling in a way that prevents justice and instead allows one of his cronies to go free.
Bang five: A judge hires a lawyer to defend his right to be ruling in a case. He's weighing what his decision is going to be, and he hires a lawyer to back him up and say he had the right to be making that decision. Has ever a judge done this? Highly unusual, at best, if not completely unprecedented.
At the end of this week, Judge Sullivan hired Beth Wilkinson to defend him in his decision to the federal appeals court.
Look at the whole of what is going on. Never in American history has a president so abused his powers this way. Never has a president so dismantled our judicial system. Never has one made justice not a matter of right and wrong, but whether you were loyal to him.
Saturday, May 23, 2020
Is Hiring a Lawyer to Defend a Judge's Decisions Ever Happened Before?
Has a judge ever hired a lawyer to defend him in the decisions he has made? Has a judge ever had to do that? Seems highly unusual to me. News today, though, says Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who presides over the Michael Flynn case, has found reason to do so.
I mean, the defendant has a lawyer, and the prosecution has a lawyer, but since when has a judge needed a lawyer?
I admire Judge Sullivan for standing up to the Trump administration. When history is written, perhaps he will be one of the heroes of our time.
I mean, the defendant has a lawyer, and the prosecution has a lawyer, but since when has a judge needed a lawyer?
I admire Judge Sullivan for standing up to the Trump administration. When history is written, perhaps he will be one of the heroes of our time.
Friday, May 22, 2020
Why are not Antibodies Used for Vaccinations?
These antibodies, why aren't they being considered the greatest invention since vaccines, themselves? Or, maybe even better than the invention of vaccines, since you don't have to wait a year for them to be developed.
You take the blood plasma from someone who has had the coronavirus and conquered it, and transfuse it into someone else, and -- bang -- that person is now immune to COVID-19. All the immunities they built up while battling the virus are transferred to the other person.
Well, isn't that the way it works?
I suppose if it were, we would be hearing about it. We have heard some about antibodies being used to treat patients who have COVID-19, but I don't know that we've heard of anyone receiving them as a vaccination.
Why not? Why would this not work as a vaccination? If one person while fighting off the coronavirus has developed the immunities and you have identified the antibodies and can extract them from him and transfuse them into another person, why would it not be a perfect vaccination?
I'm lost.
You take the blood plasma from someone who has had the coronavirus and conquered it, and transfuse it into someone else, and -- bang -- that person is now immune to COVID-19. All the immunities they built up while battling the virus are transferred to the other person.
Well, isn't that the way it works?
I suppose if it were, we would be hearing about it. We have heard some about antibodies being used to treat patients who have COVID-19, but I don't know that we've heard of anyone receiving them as a vaccination.
Why not? Why would this not work as a vaccination? If one person while fighting off the coronavirus has developed the immunities and you have identified the antibodies and can extract them from him and transfuse them into another person, why would it not be a perfect vaccination?
I'm lost.
Thursday, May 21, 2020
Utilized this Provision of the Constitution, and It Improves the Courts
The attorney general is chief of the prosecution arm of the government. It should not be dictating to the judicial arm what the judicial arm should do.
We should wonder if we would clear up such a conflict of interest if we were to utilize the options provided by the Constitution. The Constitution gives the president authority to nominate judges to the Supreme Court, but that authority extends no further than to the Supreme Court. It does give Congress authority "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." But, it also gives Congress the option of allowing the Courts of Law to make their own appointments.
If we were to utilize this provision, and allow the Supreme Court to make the appointments to inferior federal courts, it would provide more independence for the judicial branch from the other two branches of our government, the independence of which is important in a checks-and-balances system of government. Also, giving the judicial branch more independence and removing it from the hands of the other two branches would go a long ways towards removing politics from our judicial system, an achievement that is vital if we are to provide a fair and equitable system of justice.
So, the thought that President Trump and Attorney General William Barr have any authority over the court system is in error. It is an error that seems to be creeping into our system under the President. The President has claimed he is the chief law enforcement officer in the land and the seemed meaning behind that comment was that he has authority to dictate how the courts are ran. There have also been those who have suggested William Barr has some authority over the courts. That, too, is in error.
We should do everything we can to ensure the independence of the courts, and allowing them to make their own appointments would go a long ways in helping to make that independence clear.
Blog edited, corrected, altered, and extended 5/22/20.
We should wonder if we would clear up such a conflict of interest if we were to utilize the options provided by the Constitution. The Constitution gives the president authority to nominate judges to the Supreme Court, but that authority extends no further than to the Supreme Court. It does give Congress authority "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." But, it also gives Congress the option of allowing the Courts of Law to make their own appointments.
If we were to utilize this provision, and allow the Supreme Court to make the appointments to inferior federal courts, it would provide more independence for the judicial branch from the other two branches of our government, the independence of which is important in a checks-and-balances system of government. Also, giving the judicial branch more independence and removing it from the hands of the other two branches would go a long ways towards removing politics from our judicial system, an achievement that is vital if we are to provide a fair and equitable system of justice.
So, the thought that President Trump and Attorney General William Barr have any authority over the court system is in error. It is an error that seems to be creeping into our system under the President. The President has claimed he is the chief law enforcement officer in the land and the seemed meaning behind that comment was that he has authority to dictate how the courts are ran. There have also been those who have suggested William Barr has some authority over the courts. That, too, is in error.
We should do everything we can to ensure the independence of the courts, and allowing them to make their own appointments would go a long ways in helping to make that independence clear.
Blog edited, corrected, altered, and extended 5/22/20.
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Circulate the Air Directly Down to Stop the Coronavirus
Instead of air systems that send the virus particles upward, would it more often be better to suck the particles down?
Virus particles are so small that even though you try to filter them out by wearing a mask, some surely must pass through. It seems a more sure way of keeping germs emitted from one person from being passing to another would be to whisk the germs away as soon as they exit the mouth or nose.
Fans in the floor, that shoot the germs upward, taking them into the ceiling to be filtered out? There can be quite a distance to the ceiling, and some particles would wander to the right or left and then fall right back down. Better to have grates in the floor and fans that such the air down to the floor, where the virus particles can be filtered there.
Virus particles are so small that even though you try to filter them out by wearing a mask, some surely must pass through. It seems a more sure way of keeping germs emitted from one person from being passing to another would be to whisk the germs away as soon as they exit the mouth or nose.
Fans in the floor, that shoot the germs upward, taking them into the ceiling to be filtered out? There can be quite a distance to the ceiling, and some particles would wander to the right or left and then fall right back down. Better to have grates in the floor and fans that such the air down to the floor, where the virus particles can be filtered there.
To the Common Man, can Come the Mysteries of Heaven
What I say below, I believe, but cannot say for certain it is true. At the end of this, you shall see why I place such a qualifier on what I say.
Truth is not the domain solely of prophets. All men can seek it. Those of Christianity have a scripture, James 1:5, which says if any lack wisdom, let them ask of God, for God gives to all men.
Those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a scripture, Moroni 10:6, which says that by the power of the Holy Ghost, a person can learn the truth of "all things." The average person, then, is not limited in what truths can be revealed to him.
And, they have another scripture, Alma 26:22, which says, "Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing -- unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed."
In the day of William Tyndale, the scriptures were not available to the masses, and, they were not in English that people could read them even if they had been available. The common man was not thought worthy of having the scriptures, but was to receive them only through the priests and church leaders. Tyndale changed that, he translated the Bible into English. And, he was burned alive for what he gave the world.
"If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a body who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do," he once said.
But, that true religion gives the common person access to truth, and to the knowledge of heaven, it does not give him the same access that a prophet has. The common person may but wonder if understands a truth. The common person might be correct in his revelation, or might be wrong. He (or she) is fallible. A prophet, called of God and speaking in a setting where doctrine is disseminated, will be correct.
Nor has God given the common person right to declare doctrine. He has established a church, and therefore speaks through that church.
In the day of William Tyndale, the scriptures were not available to the masses, and, they were not in English that people could read them even if they had been available. The common man was not thought worthy of having the scriptures, but was to receive them only through the priests and church leaders. Tyndale changed that, he translated the Bible into English. And, he was burned alive for what he gave the world.
"If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a body who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do," he once said.
But, that true religion gives the common person access to truth, and to the knowledge of heaven, it does not give him the same access that a prophet has. The common person may but wonder if understands a truth. The common person might be correct in his revelation, or might be wrong. He (or she) is fallible. A prophet, called of God and speaking in a setting where doctrine is disseminated, will be correct.
Nor has God given the common person right to declare doctrine. He has established a church, and therefore speaks through that church.
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Fire the Judge, if He Stands in the Way of a Decision in Your Favor
Fire the judge. If you are the defendant, and you don't like the way the judge is eyeing things up, fire him.
In most courts, that isn't possible, but in the case of Michael Flynn, we are now wondering if it is. Flynn is asking the appellate court to intervene and assign him to a different judge. Already, the attorney general has been replaced to make way for one who would be friendly to Trump's people. Already, the district attorney charged with prosecuting the case has been replaced to find one more favorable to Flynn.
Now, if the judge stands in the way, replace him, too.
In most courts, that isn't possible, but in the case of Michael Flynn, we are now wondering if it is. Flynn is asking the appellate court to intervene and assign him to a different judge. Already, the attorney general has been replaced to make way for one who would be friendly to Trump's people. Already, the district attorney charged with prosecuting the case has been replaced to find one more favorable to Flynn.
Now, if the judge stands in the way, replace him, too.
To Many, it is so Clear What William Barr is Doing is Wrong, That it's Beyond Debate
Here's but asking our nation to stop just for the brief moment to consider if it is not obvious our nation's very judicial system is being assaulted as never before. What is right and wrong should not be so hard to see. When matters of right and wrong are so clear cut, can we simply say, Let everyone have their opinion?
Yes, let everyone have their opinion. But, it remains the things President Trump and AG William Barr are doing are completely at odds with the principles of freedom on which we were founded.
Forgive, but it is so clearly so. To those of us who see it, it is a matter beyond debate. But, let each have his own convictions, the same.
Yes, let everyone have their opinion. But, it remains the things President Trump and AG William Barr are doing are completely at odds with the principles of freedom on which we were founded.
Forgive, but it is so clearly so. To those of us who see it, it is a matter beyond debate. But, let each have his own convictions, the same.
The Close Ties of Barr to the White House are a Conflict of Interest
Led by William Barr, the Department of Justice has decided to drop its case against Michael Flynn. He twice pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing. It is not the court dropping the charges, but the DOJ, itself.
"The decision again calls into question Attorney General William Barr's close ties to the White House and the independence of the Department of Justice," says a USA Today story.
The close ties between William Barr and the White House are a conflict of interest.
Why do we not see that this is true?
"The decision again calls into question Attorney General William Barr's close ties to the White House and the independence of the Department of Justice," says a USA Today story.
The close ties between William Barr and the White House are a conflict of interest.
Why do we not see that this is true?
Monday, May 18, 2020
Trump's Assault on Justice Attacks FISA Judges
A website called The Millennium Report carries a story with the headline, "All 11 FISA Judges Who Approved Unlawful Spying on Trump Appointed by John Roberts."
If the thought is that all these applications were wrongfully issued, we shouldn't buy into it. If that many different judges issued such warrants, those warrants were probably legal. The Millennium Report lists 10 judges. That means no less than 10 judges -- each one well-trained in the law and in FISAs -- found it right to approve the FISAs. The suggestion that 10 different judges erred is not likely.
It seems more likely an attempt to clear the bench of judges who are standing in your way.
Would that America could see what an assault President Trump is carrying out upon the foundations of our country.
If the thought is that all these applications were wrongfully issued, we shouldn't buy into it. If that many different judges issued such warrants, those warrants were probably legal. The Millennium Report lists 10 judges. That means no less than 10 judges -- each one well-trained in the law and in FISAs -- found it right to approve the FISAs. The suggestion that 10 different judges erred is not likely.
It seems more likely an attempt to clear the bench of judges who are standing in your way.
Would that America could see what an assault President Trump is carrying out upon the foundations of our country.
President Trump is Firing the Sheriffs
If you're in trouble, fire the sheriff. If you are the mayor of the town, and you've done something wrong, fire the sheriff and replace him with someone just a little more friendly.
For the third Friday in the last six weeks, if I read the news correctly, President Trump waited till much of the nation's news staff had went home for the weekend to announce the firing of the State Department's inspector general, Steve Linick.
These are your internal watchdogs being fired. They are set in place by an American system of justice with checks and balances. Upend that system of justice, and you have a freer route to corruption. Five IGs have been fired by the Trump administration in the last six weeks.
For the third Friday in the last six weeks, if I read the news correctly, President Trump waited till much of the nation's news staff had went home for the weekend to announce the firing of the State Department's inspector general, Steve Linick.
These are your internal watchdogs being fired. They are set in place by an American system of justice with checks and balances. Upend that system of justice, and you have a freer route to corruption. Five IGs have been fired by the Trump administration in the last six weeks.
We Should Retrofit Our Buildings With New Air Systems
It doesn't matter if you are six feet away, if the air breathed out by the other person hangs in the air, it is there for you to breathe when you advance to where he has been in the line.
Wearing masks might filter out some of the aerosol particles, but by the very nature of the masks being breathable, that they are so small of particles means some are going to not be stopped by the mask.
You have to whisk them away. And, an air system that goes horizontally only carries them to the next person. You need fans in the floor strong enough to force the air upward to a place in the ceiling where it is filtered and sent on its way.
Wearing masks might filter out some of the aerosol particles, but by the very nature of the masks being breathable, that they are so small of particles means some are going to not be stopped by the mask.
You have to whisk them away. And, an air system that goes horizontally only carries them to the next person. You need fans in the floor strong enough to force the air upward to a place in the ceiling where it is filtered and sent on its way.
Sunday, May 17, 2020
Saturday, May 16, 2020
When You Conquer a Nation, You Rewrite It's History
"History is written by the winners," William Barr said. Some say Winston Churchill said it first, his words being, "History is written by the victors." He probably wasn't the first to say it, and whoever originated the thought probably is not getting credit.
But, what of the thought and how it applies to the world of Donald Trump? If Trump's story wins, Barack Obama will be born in Africa. He will grow up to be -- along with the Clintons -- the wickedest of men. But, there will be others: James Comey, Robert Mueller, etc. Everyone who has stood in Trump's way will be assigned an inglorious place in history.
I think of history as taught in Russia, and see it gets a rewrite by those in power. I wonder if we are facing the same.
But, what of the thought and how it applies to the world of Donald Trump? If Trump's story wins, Barack Obama will be born in Africa. He will grow up to be -- along with the Clintons -- the wickedest of men. But, there will be others: James Comey, Robert Mueller, etc. Everyone who has stood in Trump's way will be assigned an inglorious place in history.
I think of history as taught in Russia, and see it gets a rewrite by those in power. I wonder if we are facing the same.
Fox News Falsely Accuses Chuck Todd
"NBC admits Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' deceptively edited Barr remarks on Flynn' -- Fox News
"NBC Admits Chuck Todd Deceptively Edited AG Bill Barr's Remarks" -- Michael Berry in a meme and video viral on the Internet.
Trouble is, Chuck Todd didn't admit to deceptively editing Barr's remarks.
CBS had asked Barr how history would view the Michael Flynn decision. "History is written by the winners, so it largely depends on who is writing the history," Barr said with a laugh. Todd played the quote and took him to task for it. Barr went on to say, "But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law." Trump supporters were angered that the full quote was included. Todd apologized that is wasn't. But, he said, "We did not edit that out. That was not our edit. We didn't include it because we only saw the shorter of two clips."
So, Fox News is a lie. Chuck Todd had not "deceptively edited Barr remarks." Todd wasn't trying to be deceptive and, he notes, his network didn't do the editing of the sound bite.
"NBC Admits Chuck Todd Deceptively Edited AG Bill Barr's Remarks" -- Michael Berry in a meme and video viral on the Internet.
Trouble is, Chuck Todd didn't admit to deceptively editing Barr's remarks.
CBS had asked Barr how history would view the Michael Flynn decision. "History is written by the winners, so it largely depends on who is writing the history," Barr said with a laugh. Todd played the quote and took him to task for it. Barr went on to say, "But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law." Trump supporters were angered that the full quote was included. Todd apologized that is wasn't. But, he said, "We did not edit that out. That was not our edit. We didn't include it because we only saw the shorter of two clips."
So, Fox News is a lie. Chuck Todd had not "deceptively edited Barr remarks." Todd wasn't trying to be deceptive and, he notes, his network didn't do the editing of the sound bite.
Trump Supporters Deceptively Edit Obama Speech
With ominous music playing in the background, the video shows Barack Obama saying, "Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs,"
Produced by Trump supporters, the video goes viral. "Welcome to the NWO," says the meme accompanying it.
Trouble is the video was doctored. The Trump supporters deceptively edited what Obama had said. He had been speaking of and lauding democracy. But, he said, there are those who challenge those ideals. "This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs."
Clearly, it was not his own belief but that of others he referred to in saying, "Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs."
Trump supporters do this again and again, perhaps daily. The dishonesty is not to be denied.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/remarks-president-address-european-youth
Go to about the 3:20 mark of the full speech.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=&&view=detail&mid=EEA1749FA1C5D2A450CFEEA1749FA1C5D2A450CF&FORM=VDRVRV&fbclid=IwAR1T4IUm6nQ21e6y1xng-79PpwjrR5fxf1Z07jtsyGfViApnG2py7aPghD0
Produced by Trump supporters, the video goes viral. "Welcome to the NWO," says the meme accompanying it.
Trouble is the video was doctored. The Trump supporters deceptively edited what Obama had said. He had been speaking of and lauding democracy. But, he said, there are those who challenge those ideals. "This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs."
Clearly, it was not his own belief but that of others he referred to in saying, "Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs."
Trump supporters do this again and again, perhaps daily. The dishonesty is not to be denied.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/remarks-president-address-european-youth
Go to about the 3:20 mark of the full speech.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=&&view=detail&mid=EEA1749FA1C5D2A450CFEEA1749FA1C5D2A450CF&FORM=VDRVRV&fbclid=IwAR1T4IUm6nQ21e6y1xng-79PpwjrR5fxf1Z07jtsyGfViApnG2py7aPghD0
Friday, May 15, 2020
The Mark of a Lie is Often Another Lie
In the meme, they toss their heads back and laugh, Barack Obama and the Clintons. "Can you believe it?? We got away with Uranium One, Benghazi, Solyndra, NSA spying, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, cash to Iran, giving nukes to North Korea, rigging a primary, the email scandal, and spying on Trump."
Not a fair meme. It portrays them as being happy for doing things they are accused of. That's not an honest portrayal. The truth is, they are not sitting around laughing at those things.
If a person has to lie to make a point, be concerned that the point might be a lie, as well. If it is clearly a lie that they are sitting around laughing at what they have done, wonder if they really did do all those horrible things, or if that is just more lying of the same.
In a world where there is so much information, so much to decipher -- in a world where truth can be hard to determine -- consider that the person who turns a lie once, might turn it again. They leave their mark. The mark of a lie is often another lie. Truth reinforces itself with truth, but lies require more lies.
(Some rewriting done 5/16/19)
Not a fair meme. It portrays them as being happy for doing things they are accused of. That's not an honest portrayal. The truth is, they are not sitting around laughing at those things.
If a person has to lie to make a point, be concerned that the point might be a lie, as well. If it is clearly a lie that they are sitting around laughing at what they have done, wonder if they really did do all those horrible things, or if that is just more lying of the same.
In a world where there is so much information, so much to decipher -- in a world where truth can be hard to determine -- consider that the person who turns a lie once, might turn it again. They leave their mark. The mark of a lie is often another lie. Truth reinforces itself with truth, but lies require more lies.
(Some rewriting done 5/16/19)
Thursday, May 14, 2020
I Once didn't Believe in the Deep State, but have Come to Believe it is True
Deep State, give it new meaning. It is a leader coming to power portraying an image of goodness while in fact being the stark opposite. It's the leader wrapping himself in a flag, while his actions tear that flag apart. It's the leader urging you to not look at the evident truths of the day, but to listen to news only friendly to him.
Deep State is a pied-piper, it's merry tune drawing a following, leading away captive those who fall mesmerized under its spell. They clap and they sing as they are led to their dungeons. They praise and they honor the leader who brings them their death.
Deep State is the replacing of those who oppose you with those who don't. It's the installing of those who will follow you and the sweeping away of those who are won't. It's the rewriting of history, so all that you've done is just, and all that your predecessors did was not. It's the pact of secrecy of those pledged to do your bidding. It's the paying off of Stormy Daniels not to reveal the truth. It's the manipulating of videos to make them seem that which they're not. It's the refusal to let witnesses have their free speech to testify against you.
Deep State is the keeping of secrets that would witness against you.
Deep State is the blonde chameleon. It's the one who was never part of the government, and yet who always was. It's the man who was never a politician who yet was always a practicing part of politics. It's the man hiding his tax returns and shielding his past.
Deep State is the hiding of 24 alleged sexual assaults.
Deep State. It's the liar who says others are liars. It's the corruption that says others are corrupt.
Deep State. Recognize it by its place in the shadows. A wicked man has his friends in the shadows. He appoints those to consort in his wickedness and protect him from harm. Loyalty is the call word, but dominion the objective.
Deep State. I once didn't believe in it, but I've come to believe that it's true.
Deep State is a pied-piper, it's merry tune drawing a following, leading away captive those who fall mesmerized under its spell. They clap and they sing as they are led to their dungeons. They praise and they honor the leader who brings them their death.
Deep State is the replacing of those who oppose you with those who don't. It's the installing of those who will follow you and the sweeping away of those who are won't. It's the rewriting of history, so all that you've done is just, and all that your predecessors did was not. It's the pact of secrecy of those pledged to do your bidding. It's the paying off of Stormy Daniels not to reveal the truth. It's the manipulating of videos to make them seem that which they're not. It's the refusal to let witnesses have their free speech to testify against you.
Deep State is the keeping of secrets that would witness against you.
Deep State is the blonde chameleon. It's the one who was never part of the government, and yet who always was. It's the man who was never a politician who yet was always a practicing part of politics. It's the man hiding his tax returns and shielding his past.
Deep State is the hiding of 24 alleged sexual assaults.
Deep State. It's the liar who says others are liars. It's the corruption that says others are corrupt.
Deep State. Recognize it by its place in the shadows. A wicked man has his friends in the shadows. He appoints those to consort in his wickedness and protect him from harm. Loyalty is the call word, but dominion the objective.
Deep State. I once didn't believe in it, but I've come to believe that it's true.
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
Draining the Swamp isn't in Getting Rid of Those Who Aren't Loyal to You
To drain the swamp, you have to drain the corruption. President Trump and William Barr suppose they are draining the swamp simply by getting rid of those who aren't loyal to them. It doesn't work that way. Draining the swamp in not getting rid of those who are not loyal to you, it is getting rid of those who are so corrupt they would get rid of you for not being loyal to them.
Consumption Claimed One in Seven Through all Time
The White Plague, sometimes even called the Great White Plague was the COVID-19 of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Entering the 19th Century it was estimated that Consumption -- as it was also called -- had taken one in seven of all humans who had ever lived.
Today, we know it simply as tuberculosis.
Ask COVID-19 if it is so deadly. Across a two-year span, will it kill one in seven? And, supposing it does, consider that Consumption averaged such a pace from the dawn of time through the 19th century.
It was called the "white" plague because of the paleness it brought its patients.
Today, we know it simply as tuberculosis.
Ask COVID-19 if it is so deadly. Across a two-year span, will it kill one in seven? And, supposing it does, consider that Consumption averaged such a pace from the dawn of time through the 19th century.
It was called the "white" plague because of the paleness it brought its patients.
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
If caught in act in February, Why is it illegal to ask about it in November?
If in February he was caught in the act, why in November is it so illegal to be asking Robert Flynn about his lying? He had already lost his job because of lying to Vice-President Pence before he went in and spoke to the FBI agents and -- once again -- got in trouble for lying.
It was February, 2017, when he was forced to resign after not being truthful with Vice-President Mike Pence about contacts with the Russians. And, it was not until December 1 of that year that he admitted in a plea agreement with the FBI that he had lied. (I would guess the interview for that plea agreement might have taken place in November.)
Why is it accepted that he lied to Pence, but when it comes out in the FBI plea agreement, that is inadmissible evidence? We suddenly say investigators were wrong to even be interviewing him about his lying. If way back in February the president had accepted his resignation for lying, however now is the president saying Flynn should not have been convicted?
(Note: Blog altered 5/13/20)
It was February, 2017, when he was forced to resign after not being truthful with Vice-President Mike Pence about contacts with the Russians. And, it was not until December 1 of that year that he admitted in a plea agreement with the FBI that he had lied. (I would guess the interview for that plea agreement might have taken place in November.)
Why is it accepted that he lied to Pence, but when it comes out in the FBI plea agreement, that is inadmissible evidence? We suddenly say investigators were wrong to even be interviewing him about his lying. If way back in February the president had accepted his resignation for lying, however now is the president saying Flynn should not have been convicted?
(Note: Blog altered 5/13/20)
Monday, May 11, 2020
Under the New Trump Rules, You Really Don't Need a Judge
One of the basic elements of justice is that you have a Prosecution and a Defense. The Prosecution works its case, and the Defense works its. Where you get into trouble is when the Prosecution drops its cause and instead starts working with the Defense to get the defendant off the hook.
As if that would ever happen, right?
Well, it just did.
Led by Attorney General William Barr, the DOJ joined in with the Defense to defend Michael Flynn. Now, the Prosecution already had won the case, since Flynn had pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, the Prosecution backed up and changed its mind. Probably in protest for what was about to happen, one of the lead prosecutors, Brandon Van Grack, resigned from the case just hours before the Prosecution moved for the case to be dropped. The new position of the Prosecution was that its own evidence against Flynn should be ruled inadmissible.
In America, we have judges. It is the judge who should be deciding if a case is dropped. The Defense makes the motion, the Prosecution makes its argument against it, and the judge decides which of them is right. That's if the court system is operating the way it always has in America.
But, what if the Prosecution somehow decides it wants to make the motion to drop the case? The Defense isn't going to argue. The Prosecution surrendered. They don't mind that.
And, the judge is left out. It was to be his to make the decision on whether the case was to be dropped. But, with the Prosecution and Defense agreeing on everything, there is no need for a judge. So, as a synopsis, what happened with Flynn is that the Prosecution decided it should do all the deliberation on whether he was guilty. It -- not the judge -- would weigh all the evidence. And, it -- not the judge -- would make the decision on whether the case should be thrown out.
How do we not see both the danger to America's judicial system? And, how do we not see the corruption?
As if that would ever happen, right?
Well, it just did.
Led by Attorney General William Barr, the DOJ joined in with the Defense to defend Michael Flynn. Now, the Prosecution already had won the case, since Flynn had pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, the Prosecution backed up and changed its mind. Probably in protest for what was about to happen, one of the lead prosecutors, Brandon Van Grack, resigned from the case just hours before the Prosecution moved for the case to be dropped. The new position of the Prosecution was that its own evidence against Flynn should be ruled inadmissible.
In America, we have judges. It is the judge who should be deciding if a case is dropped. The Defense makes the motion, the Prosecution makes its argument against it, and the judge decides which of them is right. That's if the court system is operating the way it always has in America.
But, what if the Prosecution somehow decides it wants to make the motion to drop the case? The Defense isn't going to argue. The Prosecution surrendered. They don't mind that.
And, the judge is left out. It was to be his to make the decision on whether the case was to be dropped. But, with the Prosecution and Defense agreeing on everything, there is no need for a judge. So, as a synopsis, what happened with Flynn is that the Prosecution decided it should do all the deliberation on whether he was guilty. It -- not the judge -- would weigh all the evidence. And, it -- not the judge -- would make the decision on whether the case should be thrown out.
How do we not see both the danger to America's judicial system? And, how do we not see the corruption?
Sunday, May 10, 2020
If for a Great Leader We Seek, Find One Who Brings Righteousness
If for a great leader a nation seeks, let it find one who will turn it to God.
Whatever else such a leader might deal with, this one would teach righteousness. Imagine this: Could it ever be we would have a president who would preach sermons? Someone who would hold press conferences to encourage people to -- well -- live the Ten Commandments?
Thou shalt not bear false witness? What of a president who would stand up and stress the importance of this commandment, and reflect on the ways the nation might be falling short, and encourage the people to do better.
Love your neighbor as yourself? What of a president who would reflect on how he and his people were doing with that commandment -- who would ask, Are we, as a people, loving our neighbors?
Someone might say, You're going to have to water this down a little bit. A president who teaches righteousness and who turns the people toward righteousness is one thing. But, you better leave God out of it.
Either way, the nation would be greatly served by having a president who would lead us in paths of righteousness. Many of our problems would be solved by the very nature of us living righteously.
(Blog added to slightly May 11, 2020)
Whatever else such a leader might deal with, this one would teach righteousness. Imagine this: Could it ever be we would have a president who would preach sermons? Someone who would hold press conferences to encourage people to -- well -- live the Ten Commandments?
Thou shalt not bear false witness? What of a president who would stand up and stress the importance of this commandment, and reflect on the ways the nation might be falling short, and encourage the people to do better.
Love your neighbor as yourself? What of a president who would reflect on how he and his people were doing with that commandment -- who would ask, Are we, as a people, loving our neighbors?
Someone might say, You're going to have to water this down a little bit. A president who teaches righteousness and who turns the people toward righteousness is one thing. But, you better leave God out of it.
Either way, the nation would be greatly served by having a president who would lead us in paths of righteousness. Many of our problems would be solved by the very nature of us living righteously.
(Blog added to slightly May 11, 2020)
Saturday, May 9, 2020
Let them roll out, these quotes about a New World Order.
"Each of us has hope to build a New World Order." -- Richard Nixon
"There is no salvation for civilization, or even for the human race, other than the creation of a world government." -- Albert Einstein
"We have before us the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a new world order." -- George H.W. Bush
"All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to creating a new world order." -- Robert Kennedy
"National socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a new world order." -- Adolph Hitler.
And, the quoting could go on and on.
Ah, then, it is real, this idea there is conspiracy to create a government to rule all the world?
Some look to the Bible, to the prophecies of Daniel and others, and see the New World Order foreshadowed. Some look at the drive to conquer the world by Hitler and others for that foreshadowing. Some look around the globe today, and see Russia combining with Iran, and China with North Korea, and wonder if those are the beginnings of a New World Order.
Some roll it altogether. To them, if Einstein called for a New World Order; or if George H.W. Bush did; or if Robert Kennedy did, they are all part of a conspiracy, all partners with the demons of the world to bring the world under a wicked and communistic thumb.
Look at the quotes. Read them again. Was Robert Kennedy desiring for something evil? Each of the speakers might have had a different notion as to what he was referring to when calling for a new world order. Some, clearly, simply wanted the world to be a better place. One world government? When Christ comes on earth to reign, that will be a world government.
Does it seem Russia or some other country dreams of ruling the world? Of course it seems possible. If not Russia, maybe some other country has that objective.
But, it is worthy to consider that when some people have spoken of a new world order, they were not seeking anything evil, but rather for something good. Is it possible that a one-government world could exist that would be benevolent? Or do we say that by the very nature of a government governing the whole world, it has to be bad, wicked and evil?
There are those who dream of a world government. And, for some, that is nothing but a nightmare.
"Each of us has hope to build a New World Order." -- Richard Nixon
"There is no salvation for civilization, or even for the human race, other than the creation of a world government." -- Albert Einstein
"We have before us the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a new world order." -- George H.W. Bush
"All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to creating a new world order." -- Robert Kennedy
"National socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a new world order." -- Adolph Hitler.
And, the quoting could go on and on.
Ah, then, it is real, this idea there is conspiracy to create a government to rule all the world?
Some look to the Bible, to the prophecies of Daniel and others, and see the New World Order foreshadowed. Some look at the drive to conquer the world by Hitler and others for that foreshadowing. Some look around the globe today, and see Russia combining with Iran, and China with North Korea, and wonder if those are the beginnings of a New World Order.
Some roll it altogether. To them, if Einstein called for a New World Order; or if George H.W. Bush did; or if Robert Kennedy did, they are all part of a conspiracy, all partners with the demons of the world to bring the world under a wicked and communistic thumb.
Look at the quotes. Read them again. Was Robert Kennedy desiring for something evil? Each of the speakers might have had a different notion as to what he was referring to when calling for a new world order. Some, clearly, simply wanted the world to be a better place. One world government? When Christ comes on earth to reign, that will be a world government.
Does it seem Russia or some other country dreams of ruling the world? Of course it seems possible. If not Russia, maybe some other country has that objective.
But, it is worthy to consider that when some people have spoken of a new world order, they were not seeking anything evil, but rather for something good. Is it possible that a one-government world could exist that would be benevolent? Or do we say that by the very nature of a government governing the whole world, it has to be bad, wicked and evil?
There are those who dream of a world government. And, for some, that is nothing but a nightmare.
The Future of the Facemask
Let us fashion our face mask better than most. We know aerosols slip through the tiniest of holes. If the mask allows air in, it allows the small little virus particles, as well. Unfortunately, breathable means virus-able.
So, perhaps a cloth mask of at least two layers. We don't want silky. We don't want shiny. No, if the material surface is not soft,if it is not absorbent, the virus particles may simply bounce off and continue on in. We want something that will catch the particle -- something sticky or such. (Would that there was something that had a magnetic-type effect on the virus.)
Two layers? The thought is that maybe if the virus passes clean through the first layer, it will need to turn or bend to get through the second. The thought is that maybe it smacks into the fiber of the second before it can bend to make its way sideways to get through another hole.
Who knows what the masks of the future will hold. Maybe they will be paper masks with a sticky center and outside layers to protect from the sticky stuff. (And, maybe the whole sticky-stuff idea won't work.) Maybe the masks of the future will be such that they allow the carbon dioxide we emit to get out, but trap out the virus particles we don't want to let in.
So, perhaps a cloth mask of at least two layers. We don't want silky. We don't want shiny. No, if the material surface is not soft,if it is not absorbent, the virus particles may simply bounce off and continue on in. We want something that will catch the particle -- something sticky or such. (Would that there was something that had a magnetic-type effect on the virus.)
Two layers? The thought is that maybe if the virus passes clean through the first layer, it will need to turn or bend to get through the second. The thought is that maybe it smacks into the fiber of the second before it can bend to make its way sideways to get through another hole.
Who knows what the masks of the future will hold. Maybe they will be paper masks with a sticky center and outside layers to protect from the sticky stuff. (And, maybe the whole sticky-stuff idea won't work.) Maybe the masks of the future will be such that they allow the carbon dioxide we emit to get out, but trap out the virus particles we don't want to let in.
These are Heroes, as Well
It is good that we honor the front-line workers, the hospital care-givers and the grocery store clerks and such. But, also are heroes are those who have lost their jobs that others might remain healthy. Also are heroes are those who sacrifice visiting family and friends in order that the virus not spread.
Friday, May 8, 2020
The Peddling of Hate is Not a Cause to be Proud of
I opened my morning Facebook the other day to the same trail of finger-pointing and name-calling as ever. It is wonderful to try to correct wrongs when wrongs exist, but where are we with all this? "You're an idiot." "No, you're the idiot." And, so it goes, post after post.
Never an America so divided.
This I wake up to morning every morning.
If you think it is glorious be involved in social affairs, you are right. But do you know what else you are involved in?
The peddling of hate. The peddling of division. Often, the peddling of lies and deception.
These things are not good to be part of. Look at the state of affairs. However torn past societies have been, however they fell into bickering and hatred of each other, could it ever have been worse than this?
This is something it is not so glorious to be part of.
Never an America so divided.
This I wake up to morning every morning.
If you think it is glorious be involved in social affairs, you are right. But do you know what else you are involved in?
The peddling of hate. The peddling of division. Often, the peddling of lies and deception.
These things are not good to be part of. Look at the state of affairs. However torn past societies have been, however they fell into bickering and hatred of each other, could it ever have been worse than this?
This is something it is not so glorious to be part of.
Do That Which You Can Without Hurting the Economy
I like it that in Utah, the stay-at-home rule was a request, not a matter for which you could get arrested. And, I do think you do everything you can to stop the virus -- everything that doesn't cause harm. From the beginning, I have been against shutting down anyone's job. Do everything you can to make it safe. Put see-through plastic canopies on each seat in restaurants, but don't prevent sit-down dining because that leaves food servers without their jobs. But, yes, if a person can work from home, have them do it. Yes, discourage social gatherings. And, when churches are willing, let them call off their meetings. You should do everything you can to stop the pandemic, but don't do anything that will take jobs away, because that is your economy. And, don't do anything that will cause farmers to destroy their crops. You damage your food supply system and that could be trouble.
Today was a Day We Looked Like a Banana Republic
Little chance there is that the public will sort through what happened this past day to understand just how wrong it is that the DOJ dropped charges against Michael Flynn.
How damaging to the nation.
How many people did President Trump have to put into place in order for this to happen? How many people who would not do it had to be fired and someone brought in who would do the dirty deed before justice could be circumvented?
Start with Attorney General William Barr. Consider Jeff Jensen. Jensen's hiring wasn't even announced initially. But it "emerged" -- as the press puts it -- that he was tabbed to to investigate the handling of the Flynn case. Is it not clear to us that he was brought in to free Flynn and just short months later that is exactly what has happened? And, do not forget Timothy Shea. Months ago, with some drama, Barr's friend was maneuvered into position as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. It was he who yesterday informed the judge that the DOJ wants charges against Flynn dropped.
Never mind that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty. Never mind that it is unprecedented that the prosecution would move to drop charges against someone who had already pleaded guilty. Never mind that law experts around the country are amazed at what is happening.
It's now happening.
"I've never seen anything like this," said one law expert, in a sentiment echoed by others.
The idea in dropping the charges against Flynn is that he was tricked into his confession. Are we to say he is a dupe? He was accomplished in life, a lieutenant general in the Army who rose to become the nation's national security advisor. Take someone like that and get them to confess? He knows if he does so, he is going to face jail time, and he pleads guilty, anyway? He has a lawyer by his side and he pleads guilty, anyway? And, now omeone comes along and tells us he didn't know what he was doing and he was tricked and the whole thing wasn't fair and we should just drop the charges against him?
Go back and remember this Michael Flynn -- the whole story. He was the president's first national security advisor. He didn't last a month before he resigned -- the shortest tenure of any national security advisor in history -- after a storm of outrage that he lied about relationships with Russia.
The president pleaded with FBI acting director James Comey to not go after Flynn, you might remember. And, Comey said, No. Not going to happen.
And, Trump fired Comey, perhaps the first of the firings that brought about appointments in order to accommodate what is now happening. You don't need much of a memory to recall there were -- and, still are -- calls to throw Comey in jail.
How reminiscent, then, to hear the president tweeting, "I hope that a big price is going to be paid" by those who went after Flynn. "It's treason; It's treason," Trump tweeted yesterday.
One wonders if Brandon Van Grack will be one of those Trump seeks to have thrown in prison. Early today -- before the news that the DOJ wanted charges to be dropped -- Van Grack resigned from his role as a lead prosecutor in the case. Whether he resigned in protest or was asked to step down was unclear.
But, the conservative news of the day was quick to paint him as a villain. "After Evidence of Corruption, DOJ Prosecutor Withdraws From Flynn Case," The Federalist wrote.
And, what did prosecutors -- that probably means Grack -- do? They brought him in for questioning and he ended up saying he had lied. For this, it is not Flynn who should be prosecuted, but Van Grack? Something is up with that.
When Jensen came in, he forced prosecutors to release documents to Flynn's lawyers, even though providing such documents to the defense is not a normal practice. In this case, it gave them opportunity to scour everything in search of a reason to get Flynn off the hook.
The Associated Press reported that the DOJ ended up agreeing with the defense counsel that the interview with Flynn's lawyers never should have taken place because there never were any inappropriate contacts with the Russians, in the first place.
It is worthy to run that by us again: There never should have been an investigation -- is that what we are saying? -- because Flynn was innocent? It does so seem that you can have questions about a person's innocence, and if you do, you should be allowed to take him in and question him. But, now we are saying that that is improper procedure, and therefore whatever Flynn told them is inadmissible evidence?
And, whoever did interview him needs to be tossed in jail themselves? "I hope that a big price is going to be paid," President Trump tweets.
If we let the guilty go free, and instead toss in jail those who dared to bring them to justice, how has the justice of America fallen.
"We're not suppose to have one system of justice for the President's friends and another system for the rest of us," tweeted political pundit Renato Mariotti.
A nation cannot long stand when its leaders are set free for their crimes while those who would bring them to justice are sent to prison in their place.
How damaging to the nation.
How many people did President Trump have to put into place in order for this to happen? How many people who would not do it had to be fired and someone brought in who would do the dirty deed before justice could be circumvented?
Start with Attorney General William Barr. Consider Jeff Jensen. Jensen's hiring wasn't even announced initially. But it "emerged" -- as the press puts it -- that he was tabbed to to investigate the handling of the Flynn case. Is it not clear to us that he was brought in to free Flynn and just short months later that is exactly what has happened? And, do not forget Timothy Shea. Months ago, with some drama, Barr's friend was maneuvered into position as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. It was he who yesterday informed the judge that the DOJ wants charges against Flynn dropped.
Never mind that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty. Never mind that it is unprecedented that the prosecution would move to drop charges against someone who had already pleaded guilty. Never mind that law experts around the country are amazed at what is happening.
It's now happening.
"I've never seen anything like this," said one law expert, in a sentiment echoed by others.
The idea in dropping the charges against Flynn is that he was tricked into his confession. Are we to say he is a dupe? He was accomplished in life, a lieutenant general in the Army who rose to become the nation's national security advisor. Take someone like that and get them to confess? He knows if he does so, he is going to face jail time, and he pleads guilty, anyway? He has a lawyer by his side and he pleads guilty, anyway? And, now omeone comes along and tells us he didn't know what he was doing and he was tricked and the whole thing wasn't fair and we should just drop the charges against him?
Go back and remember this Michael Flynn -- the whole story. He was the president's first national security advisor. He didn't last a month before he resigned -- the shortest tenure of any national security advisor in history -- after a storm of outrage that he lied about relationships with Russia.
The president pleaded with FBI acting director James Comey to not go after Flynn, you might remember. And, Comey said, No. Not going to happen.
And, Trump fired Comey, perhaps the first of the firings that brought about appointments in order to accommodate what is now happening. You don't need much of a memory to recall there were -- and, still are -- calls to throw Comey in jail.
How reminiscent, then, to hear the president tweeting, "I hope that a big price is going to be paid" by those who went after Flynn. "It's treason; It's treason," Trump tweeted yesterday.
One wonders if Brandon Van Grack will be one of those Trump seeks to have thrown in prison. Early today -- before the news that the DOJ wanted charges to be dropped -- Van Grack resigned from his role as a lead prosecutor in the case. Whether he resigned in protest or was asked to step down was unclear.
But, the conservative news of the day was quick to paint him as a villain. "After Evidence of Corruption, DOJ Prosecutor Withdraws From Flynn Case," The Federalist wrote.
And, what did prosecutors -- that probably means Grack -- do? They brought him in for questioning and he ended up saying he had lied. For this, it is not Flynn who should be prosecuted, but Van Grack? Something is up with that.
When Jensen came in, he forced prosecutors to release documents to Flynn's lawyers, even though providing such documents to the defense is not a normal practice. In this case, it gave them opportunity to scour everything in search of a reason to get Flynn off the hook.
The Associated Press reported that the DOJ ended up agreeing with the defense counsel that the interview with Flynn's lawyers never should have taken place because there never were any inappropriate contacts with the Russians, in the first place.
It is worthy to run that by us again: There never should have been an investigation -- is that what we are saying? -- because Flynn was innocent? It does so seem that you can have questions about a person's innocence, and if you do, you should be allowed to take him in and question him. But, now we are saying that that is improper procedure, and therefore whatever Flynn told them is inadmissible evidence?
And, whoever did interview him needs to be tossed in jail themselves? "I hope that a big price is going to be paid," President Trump tweets.
If we let the guilty go free, and instead toss in jail those who dared to bring them to justice, how has the justice of America fallen.
"We're not suppose to have one system of justice for the President's friends and another system for the rest of us," tweeted political pundit Renato Mariotti.
A nation cannot long stand when its leaders are set free for their crimes while those who would bring them to justice are sent to prison in their place.
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Should The AP have Run a Tara Reade Story Earlier?
One wonders if The Associated Press wrongfully suppressed running a story about Joe Biden allegedly assaulting Tara Reade months before the recent revelations.
They sat on a story. And, all these months later, the current story breaks. How much of this did The AP have, only to choose not to run it? Bless them, but should they have run it?
Pick up this story from the Daily Herald at their heraldextra-dot-com address. "The AP declined to publish details of the 2019 interviews at the time because reporters were unable to corroborate her allegations and aspects of her story contradicted other reporting," says the Daily Herald.
The Daily Herald story says one of the interviews "was deleted before Reade emerged in 2020 with one allegations against Biden, in keeping with the reporter's practice for disposing of old interviews."
How much of the story did The AP have but chose not to run? People corroborating Reade's testimony have since come forth. The AP says it didn't run the story in part because it couldn't find such witnesses. Did they try? Seems they could have just asked Reade, and she would have provided them.
Bless The AP. I do respect it. But, this time around, from all that I do have here, it does seem it should have run the story. Biden is a candidate for the highest office in the land. The accusation was not proven -- still isn't -- but it was credible enough that the public deserved to know about it.
Note: Six sentences added to blog 5/7/20
https://www.heraldextra.com/news/national/government-and-politics/reade-i-didnt-use-sexual-harassment-in-biden-complaint/article_34af97e1-36b2-5c28-8870-883656d1e642.html
They sat on a story. And, all these months later, the current story breaks. How much of this did The AP have, only to choose not to run it? Bless them, but should they have run it?
Pick up this story from the Daily Herald at their heraldextra-dot-com address. "The AP declined to publish details of the 2019 interviews at the time because reporters were unable to corroborate her allegations and aspects of her story contradicted other reporting," says the Daily Herald.
The Daily Herald story says one of the interviews "was deleted before Reade emerged in 2020 with one allegations against Biden, in keeping with the reporter's practice for disposing of old interviews."
How much of the story did The AP have but chose not to run? People corroborating Reade's testimony have since come forth. The AP says it didn't run the story in part because it couldn't find such witnesses. Did they try? Seems they could have just asked Reade, and she would have provided them.
Bless The AP. I do respect it. But, this time around, from all that I do have here, it does seem it should have run the story. Biden is a candidate for the highest office in the land. The accusation was not proven -- still isn't -- but it was credible enough that the public deserved to know about it.
Note: Six sentences added to blog 5/7/20
https://www.heraldextra.com/news/national/government-and-politics/reade-i-didnt-use-sexual-harassment-in-biden-complaint/article_34af97e1-36b2-5c28-8870-883656d1e642.html
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
A Bastion of Freedom has been Under Fire Since the Trump took Office
The press was respected, largely, until Donald Trump came into office. One of the bastions of freedom is a free and independent press, one that doesn't have to be answerable to the president. If President Trump can get us to not listen to it, and to only listen to news sources friendly to him, he will have destroyed one of the foundations of a free country, one of the institutions upon which our country was founded.
I believe only about 50 percent of Americans trust the press today. So, he is well along in achieving the goal.
Yes, there has always been a questioning of the press, but it was nowhere near -- nowhere near -- what it has become since the president took office. People actually admired the press before Trump. They lauded it as one of the great American foundations of our nation.
Then, Trump came along.
An enemy from within has done this.
If you do not adore, honor, and laud the president, he wants you out of there. And, that attitude carries over to his treatment of the press.
Some may say the media is always asking negative questions, always looking for something negative to say. But, one of the needs of a free society is a press that will question the government.
Yes, President Trump should have the right to fire back at the media. Ye, he has that right. The problem comes when he convinces the nation that the press is being unfair to him. When the nation no longer believes someone has the right to question government, that doesn't speak well of where the nation is headed.
I believe only about 50 percent of Americans trust the press today. So, he is well along in achieving the goal.
Yes, there has always been a questioning of the press, but it was nowhere near -- nowhere near -- what it has become since the president took office. People actually admired the press before Trump. They lauded it as one of the great American foundations of our nation.
Then, Trump came along.
An enemy from within has done this.
If you do not adore, honor, and laud the president, he wants you out of there. And, that attitude carries over to his treatment of the press.
Some may say the media is always asking negative questions, always looking for something negative to say. But, one of the needs of a free society is a press that will question the government.
Yes, President Trump should have the right to fire back at the media. Ye, he has that right. The problem comes when he convinces the nation that the press is being unfair to him. When the nation no longer believes someone has the right to question government, that doesn't speak well of where the nation is headed.
Monday, May 4, 2020
A Leader Practicing Secret Combinations 'Has His Friends in Iniquity'
Those who believe in the Book of Mormon know it speaks of secret combinations, and secret oaths, that were to come.
In our day.
We read of how such who get in power, "has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned . . . and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed." Is this passage not just referring to what happened in Book of Mormon times, but what was to happen in our day?
Believers in the Book of Mormon long have looked about them, wondering where all they see things that fit the description of secret combinations. Well, don't stop looking now.
It is fair to cast an eye to President Trump and wonder if there is likeness. If these things were promised to happen in our day, would they possibly be manifested in at least one of our presidencies.
Surely, in Donald Trump, there are likenesses. The president has torn up many of the laws of his predecessor. He has surrounded himself with people who protect him in what he does. A person must signify loyalty to him to work in his administration. And, the president destroys those who are not loyal, calling some of them to be investigated and prosecuted, and just firing others.
"He has his friends in iniquity, and keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned." And, "whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed."
Consider the Stormy Daniels affair, and of the oath she took not to reveal it. Is this not an oath of secrecy? It is.
In our day.
We read of how such who get in power, "has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned . . . and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed." Is this passage not just referring to what happened in Book of Mormon times, but what was to happen in our day?
Believers in the Book of Mormon long have looked about them, wondering where all they see things that fit the description of secret combinations. Well, don't stop looking now.
It is fair to cast an eye to President Trump and wonder if there is likeness. If these things were promised to happen in our day, would they possibly be manifested in at least one of our presidencies.
Surely, in Donald Trump, there are likenesses. The president has torn up many of the laws of his predecessor. He has surrounded himself with people who protect him in what he does. A person must signify loyalty to him to work in his administration. And, the president destroys those who are not loyal, calling some of them to be investigated and prosecuted, and just firing others.
"He has his friends in iniquity, and keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned." And, "whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed."
Consider the Stormy Daniels affair, and of the oath she took not to reveal it. Is this not an oath of secrecy? It is.
Sunday, May 3, 2020
When the Antibodies go Haywire, the Process of Death Begins
Perhaps death begins the moment our immune system starts attacking us, instead of attacking the viruses, diseases and maladies that also can kill us. One wonders if the secret to living forever is as simple as keeping our immune system in check.
See, we have these little protein cells. They're called antibodies. They run around tagging all the infected cells, so the rest of the immune system can come around and attack those infected cells.
But, what happens if the antibodies get a little mixed up, and don't recognize the infected cells, and don't tag them for destruction? Or, worse, what if the antibodies start tagging good cells, instead of infected ones?
The minute the antibodies fail in their duty, is the minute death begins, I would guess. Sometimes, the antibodies might start going haywire even in a newborn baby, and we have what are called childhood diseases. As life goes on, more and more antibody failures start to pile up. Some people's antibodies fail in one way, and others fail in other ways. But, it is all a march toward death, the same.
I wonder if hope against all this was born Dec. 3, 1967, in Cape Town, South Africa, when Dr. Chris Barnard successfully transplanted a heart into the chest of Louis Washkansky. Washkansky would only live another 18 days, when his immune system would again fail him, and he died of pneumonia. But, what allowed him to live for the short time he did?
Medications.
When a patient receives a new heart, it is foreign to the heart, and the immune system attacks it. It is only by giving the patient drugs that stop that process, and get the immune system to accept the new heart, that allows the patient to accept the new heart.
It would seem if we can find a medicine that persuades the body to accept the cells of foreign organ, we should be able to find a medicine that talks the antibodies into not tagging our own cells for destruction. One almost wonders if finding medicines to do this is the answer to life, itself. Okay, I don't almost wonder, I wonder.
See, we have these little protein cells. They're called antibodies. They run around tagging all the infected cells, so the rest of the immune system can come around and attack those infected cells.
But, what happens if the antibodies get a little mixed up, and don't recognize the infected cells, and don't tag them for destruction? Or, worse, what if the antibodies start tagging good cells, instead of infected ones?
The minute the antibodies fail in their duty, is the minute death begins, I would guess. Sometimes, the antibodies might start going haywire even in a newborn baby, and we have what are called childhood diseases. As life goes on, more and more antibody failures start to pile up. Some people's antibodies fail in one way, and others fail in other ways. But, it is all a march toward death, the same.
I wonder if hope against all this was born Dec. 3, 1967, in Cape Town, South Africa, when Dr. Chris Barnard successfully transplanted a heart into the chest of Louis Washkansky. Washkansky would only live another 18 days, when his immune system would again fail him, and he died of pneumonia. But, what allowed him to live for the short time he did?
Medications.
When a patient receives a new heart, it is foreign to the heart, and the immune system attacks it. It is only by giving the patient drugs that stop that process, and get the immune system to accept the new heart, that allows the patient to accept the new heart.
It would seem if we can find a medicine that persuades the body to accept the cells of foreign organ, we should be able to find a medicine that talks the antibodies into not tagging our own cells for destruction. One almost wonders if finding medicines to do this is the answer to life, itself. Okay, I don't almost wonder, I wonder.
Saturday, May 2, 2020
A Dozen Days and the Warning is Hardly Touched
What has it been, a dozen days since the UN warned us of famines of "biblical proportions"?
"Act fast," the UN warned, and I wonder if we in the United States have even begun to move. The UN might be on it, but in the United States, the UN's warning seems to have gone completely unnoticed.
Not a touch of concern.
Oh, there has been a rush of concern after Tyson Foods warned that our food supply chain in America is on the verge of a breakdown. But, that is somewhat a separate issue. The UN was talking about famines in other countries.
And, it spoke of not only the coronavirus being the cause, but a "perfect storm" of conditions existing, such as more frequent natural disasters and changing weather patterns.
We've turned a deaf ear on the UN. It warned of famines of "biblical proportions," and we are so jaded by everything going on about us that we have no room for this warning.
"Act fast," the UN warned, and I wonder if we in the United States have even begun to move. The UN might be on it, but in the United States, the UN's warning seems to have gone completely unnoticed.
Not a touch of concern.
Oh, there has been a rush of concern after Tyson Foods warned that our food supply chain in America is on the verge of a breakdown. But, that is somewhat a separate issue. The UN was talking about famines in other countries.
And, it spoke of not only the coronavirus being the cause, but a "perfect storm" of conditions existing, such as more frequent natural disasters and changing weather patterns.
We've turned a deaf ear on the UN. It warned of famines of "biblical proportions," and we are so jaded by everything going on about us that we have no room for this warning.
I Believe Tara Reade, not Joe Biden
I would have supported Joe Biden for president had he come clean and admitted to sexually assaulting Tara Reade. To me, that would have displayed great character, knowing the accusation was standing in the way of him gaining the presidency, but confessing to it, anyway.
Actually, when I did first read Friday's news story in which Biden continued to deny the charge, I judged him to be telling the truth.
As the day wore on, and I read other stories, however, I flipped back to believing not Biden, but Reade. And, today? Reade is back, commenting, and what she says is cementing my belief in her.
All we can do is read the news diligently and make our call. We listen and read carefully, knowing the news is all we've got, and then we make our judgment. Is it wrong, to so judge? This is the highest office in the land we are talking about. We, of course, do want to put a good person in the office. We do not know what happened. We can only judge from the facts before us, which amount to little more than conflicting testimony.
It simply boils down to, Reade sounds credible to me.
Months remain before the election. I don't know what might yet be revealed. But, at this point, the allegations from Tara Reade are preventing me from voting for Joe Biden.
Donald Trump, then? Even if I were inclined to vote for him, I could no quicker cast my vote for him than for Biden. I believe E. Jean Carroll's account of Trump raping her. And, there is the accusation, which I judge to be true, that he long ago raped a 13-year old.
Actually, when I did first read Friday's news story in which Biden continued to deny the charge, I judged him to be telling the truth.
As the day wore on, and I read other stories, however, I flipped back to believing not Biden, but Reade. And, today? Reade is back, commenting, and what she says is cementing my belief in her.
All we can do is read the news diligently and make our call. We listen and read carefully, knowing the news is all we've got, and then we make our judgment. Is it wrong, to so judge? This is the highest office in the land we are talking about. We, of course, do want to put a good person in the office. We do not know what happened. We can only judge from the facts before us, which amount to little more than conflicting testimony.
It simply boils down to, Reade sounds credible to me.
Months remain before the election. I don't know what might yet be revealed. But, at this point, the allegations from Tara Reade are preventing me from voting for Joe Biden.
Donald Trump, then? Even if I were inclined to vote for him, I could no quicker cast my vote for him than for Biden. I believe E. Jean Carroll's account of Trump raping her. And, there is the accusation, which I judge to be true, that he long ago raped a 13-year old.
Friday, May 1, 2020
Children to be Their Princes, and Babes to Rule Over Them
"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them," it says in Isaiah 3:4, and I wonder if that prophecy is being fulfilled.
Consider, if you will, the activism of high schoolers in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. But, more especially, think of Greta Thunberg. She, of course, is perhaps the world's best-known activist on climate change. And the sway of her influence carries into that of being a leader. Friday's news adds to her story. "Greta Thunberg launches campaign to support UNICEF protections efforts against COVID-19," says the headline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)