A few thoughts on Roy Moore

Article I, Section 2.5 of the US Constitution states: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

I don't know what Roy Moore did 38 years ago. Some of the accusers seem credible, yet a lot of their details have been shown to be inaccurate and impossible. I do know what Al Franken did, since we have a photo. But I can't see how the Senate can expel a properly elected Senator for something he did before he served in the Senate. I realize that the last portion of the above referenced passage from the Constitution seems completely open-ended, but is it really? Isn't it actually an extension of the thought that comes immediately before it? In other words, if a member exhibits "disorderly behaviour," the Senate can "punish him," or with a vote of 2/3, "expel" him. Under what line of thinking would a man's conduct before the voters sent him to Congress be considered "disorderly behaviour"?  Aren't the voters the judge and jury? If the people of Alabama find Roy Moore to be the man they want representing them in the Senate, how do the other 99 members get to throw him out? And I would also argue, how do they get to throw out Al Franken?

To date I have not heard any of this discussed in the media. Everyone seems to just assume the Senate can throw a man out of their elitist little club for any ole reason at all. To me, that seems constitutionally dubious.

Historically, the Senate has expelled one man for siding with the Creek Indians against the government and several for siding with the Confederacy. That's it. So I guess treason qualifies as "disorderly behaviour." But all of these treasonous behaviours took place while these men were in office, not long before they faced the electorate.

Another point: I am disgusted with how quickly the GOP Ruling Class convicted Roy Moore and started trying to throw him overboard. I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I'm for letting the people of Alabama pass the verdict. And frankly, I would hope that people would not judge me today by some of the really stupid stuff I did in my early years. Men can grow and mature and develop better character. To be honest, the very fact that McConnell et al are so desperate to keep him out of the Senate causes me to think we really need him in there.

Time for action

As the bodies continue to pile up, I feel it's time for Congress to enact some common sense truck control. First of all, we need to immediately initiate universal background checks on anyone attempting to rent a truck. In addition, there should be a three-day waiting period. I think it would also be reasonable to limit the size of gas tanks and remove the muffler so people will be able to hear the truck coming at 'em. I'm also quite sure that the trial lawyers would support a proposal to hold truck manufacturers liable for the death of anyone killed by a truck, especially if it's a high-powered truck. As for the young man who drove the truck in the recent NYC attack, he deserves to be deported and allowed to reenter the country at least four more times before he is forced to stand trial. On the other hand, the cop that shot him ought to be charged immediately. I maintain that if these common sense measures had been taken before before the NYC event, there is no telling how many lives might have been saved.   

Liberal sucesses

• Baltimore (620,000 people) has had more murders this year than NYC (8.5 million people).
• Baltimore has a higher murder per capita rate than Chicago.
• Colorado has the highest rate in the nation of marijuana use by teens (of course you have to be 21 to buy it).
• The number of fatal traffic accidents in Colorado involving drivers testing positive for marijuana has doubled since 2013. 
• The Boy Scouts now admit girls.

The official Obama statement

"Michelle and I have been disgusted [past tense, suggesting they are not disgusted anymore] by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein [not by Weinstein himself or his behavior, but only by the "recent reports." A subtle by important distinction.]. Any man [this is not about "any man", it's about a particular man] who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned [but far be it from them  to actually condemn him] and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status. We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories [such as Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Brodderick?]. And we all need to build a culture — including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect [Does this mean we should stop allowing children to watch the garbage pumped out by Hollywood, which is the chief purveyor of sexual promiscuity and deviancy?] — so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future [they want to make it "less prevalent" but have no desire to totally eliminate it.]."

Are the Obamas really unaware that the culture they say needs to be built once existed in America? It is their buddy Harvey Weinstein and his immoral comrades in Hollywood who are largely responsible for dismantling it over the past 50 years. Taken at face value, the Obama's statement says nothing and makes no direct assertion about or condemnation of Harvey Weinstein. BHO is truly the master of uttering words without actually saying anything. I'm sure his still hoping to get his money-grubbing hands on some of Weinstein's filthy lucre down the road after all the fuss settles down.

Those inconvenient facts...

Washington Post article

National Interest equals conservative ideology

We have all heard many times that Trump is not an ideologue, that he doesn't think in terms of ideology. Rush in particular says this a lot. In contrast, Trump is practical and thinks only in terms of what, in his judgment, would be in the best interests of our country. This caused a lot of my conservative friends to be quite negative about electing Trump. I confess that I too was nervous about it; but I always figured that rolling the dice with Trump was far better than getting a sure thing with corrupt Hillary. Well, it seems to me that we have increasing evidence that what a smart, successful businessman thinks is in the best interests of America is very similar to conservative ideology. Duh... Either that, or Trump is in fact an ideological conservative.

An insight

"A job is the best social program of all." Anthony Pratt

Has Big Brother arrived?

I am a patriotic American and I am all for our intelligence services protecting us, but this story really bothers me. What have we become?

Spies among us...

Trump's replacement for Obamacare

From President Trump's State of the Union speech on February 28, 2017...

"So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster. Here are the principles that should guide the Congress as we move to create a better healthcare system for all Americans:

     "First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.

     "Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts –- but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.

     "Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.

     "Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance – and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.

     "Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines –- creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.

     "Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed.  Every problem can be solved.  And every hurting family can find healing, and hope."

Insane leftist ideology

Leftists are more committed to protecting the “right” of an adult to enter America illegally through an unsecured gap in the border than the right of a baby to enter America legally through the birth canal.

You won't hear this on the evening news...

In an interview Sunday, President Trump was asked how he could respect Vladimir Putin, being that he’s a killer. He answered, in part, “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” A couple of points.

First, the interviewer never explained what he meant when he said Putin is a killer. Did he mean that Putin has actually placed a gun to someone’s head and pulled the trigger? Did he mean he had ordered the killing of certain people, particularly political opponents? Or did he mean that he has no problem with the concept of killing political opponents, regardless of whether or not he has actually done it himself or ordered a hit on a particular person? We can make assumptions here, but I’m not sure we have any direct evidence.

Second, would it be wise for the new president to condemn as a killer a leader of Putin’s stature right out of the box. That’s a pretty serious accusation. Trump has said he wants to try to form alliances with the Russians. Calling their leader a killer may not be a very wise diplomatic move. I suspect that if Putin proves to be a back-stabber, the president will not be shy about calling him whatever epithet pops into his head.

Back to Trump’s answer: “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” In response I call a few names to your attention: Patrice Lumumba, Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (16-year-old son of Anwar). Each of these people was assassinated by order of the President of the United States without due process because it was deemed to in the interest of national security. There are probably many others, and there are certainly many others who have been killed by the CIA or military, not because they were enemy soldiers in a declared war, but because their deaths were deemed to in the interest of national security. There is reason to believe the CIA attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro numerous times.

According to WikiSpooks.com, “The CIA has long had a policy of assassinating individuals for a mixture of reasons. Formerly, these attacks were covert, but increasingly, the US government is open about assassinating anyone whom it pleases. The official narrative, however, avoids the word assassination, preferring instead the euphemism “targeted killing.” Attacks are being made on individuals or leaders of quite small groups who are post hoc designated “terrorists.” Since 2011 there have been killings of nuclear technicians in Iran. Drones are proving increasingly effective at killing targets, and are even being programmed to make autonomous decisions about whom to kill.”

I am not necessarily objecting to this practice, but to be fair, there is substance to Donald Trump’s assertion that America is not so innocent. What one leader may see as a national interest may not be seen that way by others. I’m sure there are plenty of people in Yemen who consider Barrack Obama a killer. I’m sure there were plenty of Congolese in the early 60s who considered Eisenhower a killer. I’m sure plenty of Cubans wished they could have consider Kennedy a killer. Unfortunately for the people of Cuba, his CIA never succeeded.

Trump listens and learns...

CLICK to watch President Trump listening to his predecessors.