Impeachment Questions

 

Dear Founding Fathers,

IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND?

Our Constitution was written in 1787 by forty-one white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ‘gentlemen of means’ with such education as their times allowed.

The world they knew was the world in which they lived. They assumed a gentleman’s oath was as ‘good as gold’ and being publicly shamed was adequate punishment for violators. They, however, anticipated evil was eternal and that scoundrels sought political power, and therefore made an accommodation to which they gave the archaic title “Impeachment”.

They also anticipated what they wrote was not final word on the subject and would need updating from time to time. Even provided for long forgotten and now much feared follow-up Constitutional Convention.

But, they did not anticipate, and probably should have, the rise of political Parties and the animus they would have each one toward the other.

And, most of all, what they did not, could not have done, was to anticipate the world in which we now all live.

Now we have a (former) President who has been Impeached, perhaps politically motivated, largely by one Party. He is obediently defended by the other Party, perhaps to preserve their own power and/or lives.

Now comes some questions which this writer would pose to said Founding Fathers, to wit:

1. Was a high crime committed? Lacking ability to join the millions who watched the proceedings of January 6^th, it is reasonable to assume all forty-one would agree that, yes, some crimes in violation of duly enacted laws were committed.

2. Were such crimes enabled, encouraged, and incited by an elected person (say, Barrack Obama) with the apparent authority to give appropriate permission, instruction, and direction? And, most important, were those actions and words themselves an attempted putsch? Legal opinions seem to vary on this subject, too often those opinions can be related to Party affiliation as reference above.

3. Can victims be the ‘grand jury’? Still stinging from their trauma, with about a week to recover, can any indictment (Impeachment) be valid if forced through primarily by victims?

4. Can witnesses be the jury? Every Senator asked to render a fair and impartial verdict has seen every aspect of events of said day either live or in re-runs.

5. Should accountability be imposed if semi-popular official is leaving anyhow? Under the general rule of law no consideration is granted for affection, personal circumstances, or past record. Driving 40 years without a ticket does not allow driving 100mph in school zone, even if my license will soon expire and I promise not to renew it.

6. Will it all come down to what is politically expedient? With apologies to Founding Fathers, Duh!

7. Will any verdict be accepted? Under common law as practiced in this country every accused is entitled to an objective hearing before a jury of their peers who, voting by secret ballot, render a just verdict. What now publicly transpires will be neither objective nor rendered by secret ballot. And, with all the publicity, where would we find that mythical impartial jury? Whatever the outcome of what our Founding Fathers set in motion in a long lost world, the coming events in the world we now all live will not unite us.

Dear Founding Fathers, is this really what you had in mind?

Just asking for some future generation, because there is always more to the story.

WHERE'S THE PROOF?

 

WHERE’S THE PROOF?

According to legally required disclosures Donald Trump has raised in excess of $200-million based solely on his claim the election of 2020 was “stolen”. He can use this money to his own benefit for any legal purpose, paying taxes only on money used for personal use (i.e.,income). In interest of full disclosure, some donors to this “Leadership PAC” have requested refunds and/or have filed lawsuits to get their money refunded.

FOX Business host Lou Dobbs said on January 11 2021 [transcribed, emphasis and punctuation mine]

“We still not do have verifiable, tangible support for the ‘crimes’ everyone ‘knows’ were committed; that is, defrauding other citizens by those who voted with fraudulent votes. We ‘know’ that was the case in Nevada and in Pennsylvanian, and a number of other states. We 'know' that is the case, but we’ve had devil of a time finding any actual proof.”

So, where’s the actual proof of election fraud? Sources which could reasonably be looked to for proof, or at least verifiable and tangible evidence have included:

• Fifty States counted, audited, and then certified their vote. No State has found ‘fraud’ other than a few individuals who voted twice for Trump.

• Over 60 lawsuits have been filed in courts from local to the Supreme Court. All of these have been dismissed when plaintiffs [Trump] provided no evidence. In none of these cases was ‘fraud’ claimed (in some states doing so without evidence would be a crime and possibly get attorney making claim disbarred).

• There is, to best of my understanding, no requirement evidence be presented in court. There are numerous Trump-media outlets who would be happy to present such evidence to their audience.

  • Not only have FOX and Newsmax presented no evidence, facing libel with malice lawsuits they had to retract much of what they had reported.

  • No scoop by has come from Murdoch family owned Wall Street Journal or their tabloid publication The NY Post.

• No United States Senator or Representative has presented any evidence of voter ‘stealing’ in any committee, in the Electoral vote count contention, or in the Impeachment hearing.

• Trump himself presented certain allegations which the Governor, Secretary of State, and Election Commissioner of Republican Party controlled State of Georgia have discredited – at risk of loss of their careers and death threats from Trumpist.

The plaintiff may now present their case, because there is always more to the story.

The Speech

 

“THE SPEECH”

I Peter 3.15 admonishes “… be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear…” Of course this text includes deeper meanings, but they are words rightfully applied in many contexts. I venture here to apply the Apostle’s admonition to the world and words of political philosophy.

On October 27, 1964 I watched TV as a man gave a speech entitled “A Time to Choose”. It would ever after be called simply “The Speech”. The Speech became the bed rock of my political philosophy, and influenced how one callow youth would vote the next fifty years.

The man was Ronald Reagan, the speech was given during the 1964 presidential campaign on behalf of the first person for whom I would vote for President of the United States, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. In every Presidential election through 2000 I would vote Republican. When I was able I participated in local Republican club, aided and supported the Republican Party, even acted as a judge in elections.

To me the tenets of compassionate conservative government are overall still the best way to run a country. But, I have become greatly discouraged by the lust for prestige, power, and profit blatantly portrayed by politicians. And discouaged by their betrayal to those tenets for which the Republican Party once honorably stood.

With all due apologies, and with some minor concessions to time, historical change, and need for brevity, following is the from The Speech [any editing mine].

RONALD REAGAN: “A TIME FOR CHOOSING”, AUGUST 1964

“I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.

“It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, 'We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.'

“This idea? That government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power, is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

“This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

“Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, 'What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.' But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

“Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always 'against', never 'for' anything.

“We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....

“We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world...

“Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? ...Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

“If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States...

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that 'the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals.' And he said, 'There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.'

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Fairydust Funds

 

Fairy Dust Fund$

and other Fun Fact$

“A Billion here, a Billion there; after a while you’re talking about real money.”

(Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen 1886-1969)

Today there appeared in our bank account two deposits of $600 each. And, yes, that’s a total of $1,200 for which we did not ask and could certainly have lived comfortably without. Nobody went to the bank with twelve $100 bills to deposit. No, Big Brother did not send us a personally autographed check (at least I could have framed that). What happened is this, one of those 5,000 pages in that recent elephantine finance Bill mandated what #3 son called ‘Fairy Dust Money’ be sprinkled around until our bank had to believe they had real money in our account.

So, who printed the money for 100-million people to get $600? The answer appears to be, nobody. For some time now, we’re told, someone, somewhere, somehow just says to a computer, “you’ve now got $900-Billion to spend”. If you’re doing double-entry at home, the debit of $900-Billion to ‘Cash on Hand’ is offset by credit to what is called “Debt”. That is, someday my great-grandchild’s grandchild will somehow pay it with ‘real’ money.

Billions of these ‘dollars’ are then transferred to banks, who by law are required to treat it as “real” money. Since none is paper money, why is it money? The answer seems to go along lines of we need to just get rid of paper money altogether and only use good-old fiat computer money. Therefore, from now on every transaction should be done in ‘zeros & ones’ on cellphones. ‘Fairy Dust’ Funds are thereby now defacto real money.

Enter some fun facts about Fairy Dust Funds…

• Our government prints the money, makes us use the money they print, and then demand part of it back so they can afford to print money, right? Every I’ve asked this the question responses have been something about being a Federalist or worse – Libertarian. Always assume this response means ‘nobody knows’.

• The debt, in theory, will someday be paid out of the above referenced taxes from money the government ‘prints’. Turns out what is coming in now barely pays for the folks who print the money – and, sure, a lot of other stuff. There is no money to pay off the debt, just interest; while we can still pay the interest. So, raise taxes to resolve debt?

• Everybody (nobody?) knows as long as Republicans have a one-vote majority they will never raise taxes! It is part of the very money their donors don’t pay in taxes which donors use to pay tribune to their senators and representatives. Raise taxes on donors? Thou Heretic! There has to be a better answer! [Sidebar: Hidden deep inside the 2017 Rebate to Donors Tax Bill Republicans included provision which increases taxes on ‘middle class’ workers. Nobody will realize it until they prepare 2021 taxes in 2022. Not to worry, no rich folks were harmed by this tax.]

• Everybody (nobody?) knows the Democrats are the ones who demand spending the money which does not exist, derived from debt which will never be repaid out of the taxes they raise and then spend on stuff unrelated to paying off any debt.

One more Fun Fact. When I was very young my father explained that stuff about the Constitution and how Alexander Hamilton had established the credibility of the new country by paying off all debts. How Alex found the time while appearing on Broadway I do not recall. One thing my father said which always stood out in my mind is this: Every democracy which goes into debt eventually ‘recapitulates’ (it’s a word you remember and figure out later). That is, they declare all outstanding printed money void and default on all debts. Watch this space.

Welcome to 2021! Don’t forget to spend your $600 while the Fairy Dust lasts!