The Gravity of Depravity

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert a few nights ago.  I was greatly impressed with her ability to summarize what Democrats in Congress are attempting to do about the formalizing of the impeachment inquiry. 

What was most impressive was her ability to turn attention to the Constitution, and the Republic it initiated, as the focus of why an impeachment procedure is a solemn responsibility, not only of the House of Representatives and ultimately of the Senate, but of the citizenry as well.  Adhering to the Constitution, maintaining the checks and balances built into the Constitution, and guarding against negative effects of foreign interference with our ideals, values and institutions were clearly spoken of as our heritage and our obligation to maintain unbroken.  All of that was the focus of what was about to happen; not some political action as revenge for loss of an election but upholding the accountability of another branch of government by means of one of the unique checks and balances built into our Constitution. 

With several nods to the political and comedic effect Stephen Colbert achieves with his presentations, Speaker Pelosi made quite clear that the Congress was operating on a different level, and that politicizing or satirizing the impeachment procedure (or the Defendant) was not on their radar.  The House would be focused on how the President has violated his oath of office and abused his powers, and that was why the House took future procedures seriously enough to put them up for a vote in a Resolution of the House.  

It makes sense to me that Speaker Pelosi should make this type of presentation a regular exercise on her schedule so that the public can be continually informed and instructed about the impeachment inquiry and its progress.  In order to gain the involvement and support of a majority of the voting public, Democrats generally need to put forth this kind of educational effort on a more regular basis, utilizing the media in this creative way.  It needs to be part of their PLAN of helping the People understand the complicated process of impeachment.  Moreover, keeping the focus of such informational presentations on the Constitution and the importance of the primacy of Law and of the constitutional mechanism of checks and balances is of inestimable value.  It would hopefully serve a valuable purpose by undoing an atmosphere of attack on our Republic and its democratic values.   Keep the focus where it belongs – on the Constitution – not on the narcissistic Donald Trump.

The Resolution passed by the House on a partisan-divide vote is probably in itself a reasonable and prudent action.  It certainly provides everyone with a Plan for moving forward with the public part of this inquiry process.  The Resolution makes it plain that the Republicans will have their say and involvement in the process.  It also establishes that the White House will have a part through its Counsel’s Office, and does allow for due process rights being protected, and gives the chair of the Judiciary Committee authority  to conduct proceedings and to “allow for the participation of the President and his Counsel.”  That wording makes this a rather generous document and sets precedents that may benefit other presidents as well as this one. 

Unfortunately, it may also have unintended consequences that could weaken the sole obligation and duty of the House for conducting impeachment proceedings and presentation of final impeachment charges.  By inviting the White House and the sitting President to take part, the fox has been given access to the hen house and could create all manner of chaos and destruction in that location. 

As I recall, it is not customary for the Defense to attend Grand Jury hearings, or to take part in its proceedings.  The Grand Jury is the bailiwick of the Prosecution, who are the ones presenting their case in order to gain indictments from that Grand Jury against the accused, and to move to a trial based on those charges.  It is a similar process with impeachment: The Defense comes in, not in the inquiry stage (which is like the Grand Jury function) but before the Senate acting as the jury of peers with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.

 In my opinion, a president should have no part in the process devoted to the authoring of the impeachment charges.  That is solely the responsibility of the House and should remain as such. 

I therefore suggest that the Procedure Resolution contains a provision that is not provided for in the Constitution, and that may well undermine the conditions set by Amendments V and VI regarding indictment by Grand Jury and trial by jury.  Therefore, it is my recommendation that this precedent-setting flaw of allowing the president or his Counsel to be an active part of the grand-jury-like impeachment procedure be entirely reconsidered and abolished forthwith. 

We do not need to weaken the constitutional check on presidential misuse of powers by inviting the Executive branch and its Executive to have opportunity to scuttle, sabotage or delay this sole obligation laid upon the House of Representatives!

Finally, in my humble opinion, it is a mistake to proceed based on one charge only against this man.  He has managed to escape hundreds of court cases before assuming the presidency (and a plethora of charges and accusations against him), and here is his chance to do it once again.

Trump has already told us (and the Congress) exactly what he plans to do, and I for one believe he has enough support from a solid base in both the public sphere and in the Senate, not only to escape conviction, but to turn this one charge on its head so that he does not appear to be guilty of any wrong-doing.  It is his stock-in-trade, his raison d’etre, his modus operandi, and could turn out to be his coup de grace. 

We all know he’s going to avoid a guilty verdict by the Senate anyway, but what he always seeks is not just a victory, but vindication.  The single charge will provide him that opportunity. I don’t care how tight a case is presented, or how it is shown that there was a plan all along to extract dirt on Joe Biden by withholding appropriated money and weapons for Ukraine, Trump (a la Roy Cohn) will find a way to destroy this one charge in the minds of the public.

In an Oct. 8^th letter to Nancy Pelosi and the chairs of three Committees deeply involved in the “inquiry”, one of the WH Counsels on Trump’s behalf, laid out the very claims and lies that will be used as propaganda to undermine this one charge.  These “talking points” about process may in the end serve to diminish support for this one impeachable offense.  They are essentially already being used by Trump and his puppets in the Senate. Here they are as listed in that WH letter (with my under-linings pointing up some of the key words that you will hear emphasized from now on):

1)     “Your ‘Inquiry’ is constitutionally invalid and violates basic due process rights and the Separation of Powers;

You have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness.”

2)     “The invalid ‘impeachment inquiry’ plainly seeks to reverse the election of 2016 and to influence the election of 2020.”

“You seek to deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen” and to “transform impeachment from an extraordinary remedy that should rarely be contemplated into a political weapon to be deployed for political gain.”

3)     “there is no legitimate basis for your ‘impeachment inquiry’; instead, the Committee actions raise serious questions.” 

"Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call (to President Zelensky) is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing…which powerfully confirms that there is no issue with the actual call.”

4)     For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people.”

We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.”

What I propose is that several charges of impeachment be brought indicating the pattern of criminality that this man has wrought.  Show the depth of his depravity, and the gravity of his lawlessness.  Help the public understand that this is someone who poses a threat to our national security and to our very uniqueness as a representative democracy.  He has committed high crimes and misdemeanors of all sorts and they should not be minimized.  Together they paint the picture of a criminal mind and a despotic character who is intent on destroying democratic values in order to promote the unlimited authority of a rogue president. Here is just a sample of what might be included (grateful to other sources for some of these elements, including soapboxie.com, Washington Post, NBC News).

1)     Violations of the Emoluments Clause

·      made millions of dollars by using his golf resort in Florida as a Southern White House

·      profited when he urged Vice President Pence to stay at his resort in Ireland (which was far from where Pence was meeting the Irish Prime Minister)

·      indeed, it appears that units of our own armed forces were convinced to bivouac at a Trump property as well

·      Trump and his family are making millions of dollars when foreign officials stay at Trump hotels and

·      when foreign governments approve Trump projects or grant trademarks for Trump products.

2)     Conflicts of interest

·      Unlike every other president before him, Donald Trump refused to divest from his business interests when he became president. As a result, Trump knows exactly how his actions as president have a direct impact on his personal wealth and his financial investments.

·      He profited from the tax cuts he enacted and likely made several million dollars. This could explain why he is the first president in over 50 years to refuse to release his tax returns. He has even gone to court to prevent the release of his tax returns.

·      the director of the US Office of Government Ethics tried to get Trump to divest from his business interests to avoid such conflicts, but Trump refused. Director Walter Shaub, Jr. saw so many ethics violations and conflicts of interest that he ultimately resigned in protest.

3)     Obstruction of Justice

·      trying to fire the people who are investigating him,

·      discouraging witnesses from cooperating with the investigation,

·      falsifying information about the Trump Tower meeting,

·      asking people to lie and dangling pardons for people who refused to cooperate with the investigation

·      see Mueller Report for more

·      cover-up of Ukrainian quid-pro-quo

4)     Abuse of Power

·      abuse of children (a felony)

o   at the southern border (including violation of the Peres Agreement)

o   by draconian cuts in federal programs

o   attempt to defund the ACA without adequate replacement for children on parent’s insurance

·      abuse of immigrants

o   discrimination against a religious group

o   delay and denial of amnesty (a universal agreed-upon human right)

o   attempt to deport those here for special medical treatment thus threatening their lives

o   separation of families by deportation

·      abuse of women, union workers, LBGTQ community, and anyone who criticizes or opposes him, including the media

5)     Violations of Campaign Finance Laws

·      During the 2016 campaign, Trump had his lawyer make illegal hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels to cover up their sexual relationship, then Trump and his lawyer lied about it. This is a blatant violation of campaign finance laws.

6)     Financial Activities that may Include laundering, bribery, non-payment of taxes, acting as an agent for other governments, and on and on.  We do not have a lot of detail about this aspect, but we do know that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York continues to  investigate Trump's financial dealings.  Let us hope that the House and the NY District can mesh their findings in order to include charges of financial chicanery.

7)     And all this does not even address a myriad of concerns that could result in charges, such as:

·      acts taken to minimize Russian aggression and Russian interference in our elections

·      betrayal of the Kurds

·      over-riding of the professional decision to deny national security clearance for Jared Kushner

·      abuse and re-assignment to lesser positions of career civil servants in federal departments

·      undermining or elimination of consumer protection boards and committees

Building a case for impeachment on just one charge is too easily minimized, and far too easily dismissed.  His supporters will say: 

“Hell, it’s just one slip-up and look at all he’s done for us!”

“It doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense!”  or they might say: 

“It’s all a hoax; made-up by the fake news people.”  It’s always possible for them to say: 

“Are you kidding me?  This kind of ‘horse-trading’ goes on every day in business, in politics, in daily life and with other nations – he’s just trying to make a deal with the Ukraine!  There’s no way he should be impeached for that – damn Sore Losers -- those Democrats!”  

And, mark my words, those same ‘opinions’ will be voiced by Trump’s loyal base and by some Independents who might have gone along with impeachment if they thought this president was nothing but a crook, a shyster, a serial breaker of the Law.  One hurried charge will not play the right tune for them either.

So, once again, while Speaker Pelosi made a great presentation on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, the Plan passed by the House is flawed enough to make me wonder if Democrats will miss this opportunity to show the nation who this fake president really is. Or, will they simply, once again, fritter away an opportunity that begs for attention, just like the election of 2016?  

We cannot afford, as a Party or a nation, to give away the sole responsibility for impeachment in the House.  We cannot afford to allow the Executive Branch to shape any of the impeachment inquiry process.  Until trial in the Senate, impeachment is solely the business of the House.  Let it be.

Likewiswe, we cannot afford to go easy on Donald Trump.  We cannot afford another missed opportunity to protect our nation and our Constitution.  We cannot afford to act as though this is business as usual.  One charge of high crime or misdeneanor is not enough because it does not address the gravity of his depravity!

Where are the new voices in the House?  Where is the rejuvenated Progressive Caucus?  Where is the boldness of a House Democratic majority?  Am I missing something?

 

Scared by "SOCIALISM"?

The word “Socialism” hangs over our nation like a perpetual storm cloud. The air that surrounds that cloud is rife with ill-defined and unnamed particles that tend to poison our minds as well as our rhetoric about issues and problems that affect our daily living. The emotional effects of that word “socialism” rain down upon us like fictional myths and illusory tenets that have too often obscured truth and reality.

If one were to ask random samples of people on the street and elsewhere: What is ‘socialism’? – one can only imagine the variety of answers one would receive, undoubtedly ranging all the way from social cooperation to communism. 

That is perhaps the main problem we face in trying to explain, or to debate, socialism: there is no one definitive definition of ‘socialism’, just as there are multiple theories that go into defining the concept of ‘capitalism.’ 

The aims of today’s Blog are to: 

1. attempt an understanding of some of the elements that are most common to various definitions of “socialism” 

2. try to define what Trump is peddling as “socialism” 

3. explore a concept that needs more adequate discussion: a “corporate socialism” (sometimes referred to as “crony capitalism”). 

First, a variety of definitions of “socialism”: 

“…various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) 

“Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management.” (Wikipedia) 

“Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.“ (Wikipedia) 

“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” (Oxford dictionaries) 

“(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism” (Oxford dictionaries)

It appears from this variety of definitions that some common elements of socialism include: 

1. socialism seems to be a system of social organization (perhaps only in theory in some instances); 

2. some variation of social or communal ownership is involved: (see Wikipedia’s second paragraph of definition above) 

3. however, where ownership by the community is implemented (by a government, a commune, a cooperative), one of the most important elements in that ownership is that everything involved in production, distribution and exchange is controlled by that community owner 

4. finally, there seems to be an element of controlled planning involved. 

It is not clear exactly what Donald J. Trump means whenever he mentions “socialism,” because his intent is not to educate or illuminate. Whenever he trots out the “socialism” flag, Trump intends that the negative connotations voters already possess will be projected onto the Democratic Party; mainly its progressive wing. When he cites examples to describe what is happening in terms of progressives or democratic socialists turning our society into a socialist one, the best he can muster is a list of programs, like: 

• Obamacare (since private insurance companies are still in control of health insurance and other aspects of medical care, this isn’t socialism)  
• Medicare-for-all. (use of private physicians, clinics, therapists, etc. negate this as a socialist program) 
• New Green Deal. (not socialist at all since private entrepreneurs will undoubtedly continue to control parts of this major evolution to 100% renewable energy sources) 
• Social, entitlement, safety net, welfare programs. (since they tend to involve government as well as private providers, programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, Head Start, etc. also fail the socialism test) 

In other words, Trump intends to spread the false impression that all social programs requiring involvement of government agencies in some manner (funding, providing services, formulating regulations, or simply making regular payments) are equivalent to rampant socialism. 

BUT they are not, simply because: (1) a number of separate governmental social programs are not equivalent to a total system of social organization under government control, and (2) all three elements of production, distribution and exchange are not under complete government control in most “social insurance” programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or Housing subsidies). Private ownership or administration of any one of those elements negates socialism. 

Trump’s definition of "socialism" apparently includes anything that might restrict the capitalistic system that has benefited him and his family and other members of the top 1% who own 90+% of the entire wealth of this country. What he really opposes is not “socialism” but government oversight of capitalism. He does not want any interference with his insatiable hunger for profit.

As usual, Trump has not been entirely consistent. It appears that ‘socialism’ is just fine when it involves government control over certain areas of society and the economy. Let us count some ways this man contradicts himself by supporting certain forms of government-controlled programs: 

1) a VA system that is controlled by the federal government in terms of every aspect of veteran care and support. It is federally funded; all services are administered and delivered by government employees; and all the recipients are also veterans of government employment. 

2) a military system with federal employees in charge of operations, distribution, and payment for services, overseen by non-military federal employees 

3) the federal Tax Code; the same Code that Trump has admitted he has used often to his advantage. The federal government organizes it, maintains it, and pays out the benefits; the private sector has no visible part in it except as recipients. This is “corporate socialism.” 

The key to this “corporate socialism” lies in the dirty little secret that it’s continuing operations are under the controlling influences of wealthy individuals and corporations. Back-room, back-channel and back-water agreements, conspiracies, and consultations with government are the lifeblood of the system. Lobbying efforts alone are gigantic, and deals are made between the parties (government and recipients) on a regular basis to make sure this form of “corporate socialism” continues virtually forever. 

Here are just some of the ways in which our taxes end-up supporting the welfare of the rich (thanks to Huffington Post for the outline and some details): 

1. State and local subsidies to corporations: it has been calculated that state and local governments provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations with 48 big corporations receiving over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and some casino companies received well over $200 million each. 

2. Direct federal subsidies to corporations: The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year. 

3. Federal tax breaks for corporations: The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

4. Federal tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money from usually pay a 35-percent rate. The National Priorities Project estimates this costs taxpayers $83 billion annually. 

5. Subsidies to the fast food industry: Research by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley documents that taxpayers pay over $240 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up those billions to pay for public benefits for their workers. 

6. There are hundreds of smaller special breaks for corporations and businesses out there. There is a special subsidy for corporate jets, which costs taxpayers $3 billion a year. The tax deduction for second homes costs $8 billion a year. Fifty billionaires received taxpayer-funded farm subsidies in the past 20 years. 

7. “One major example of corporate socialism in the past few decades has been the use of tax havens abroad by multinational companies to avoid corporate income tax. A 2015 study conducted by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund found that the largest 500 companies in the U.S. keep more than $2.1 trillion in tax havens.” (The Hill.com) 

The Huffington Post article concludes: “If you want to look at the welfare for the rich and corporations, start with the federal Internal Revenue Code…the King James Bible of welfare for the rich and corporations. Special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the country.” 

Written and maintained over many decades by both political parties, the Tax Code is a trough from which the wealthy feed off our government, and off the other 99% of taxpayers, without much fear of accountability. Whatever happened to those old phrases that elicit the fervor of capitalists everywhere: “laissez-faire” or “the free market” or “free trade”? 

Isn’t the provision of free governmental (taxpayer) money to individuals what these capitalists decry? Isn’t that the kind of “socialism” they rail against? If memory serves, this is exactly what those same capitalists claim creates a dependent society of idlers, of takers, of irresponsible citizens. And yet, the government largesse they receive does not, in their warped view, deserve any criticism or oversight…? 

In other words, YOU ARE BEING BAMBOOZLED if you think the threat to this country is from social welfare payments through special government programs for those individuals who need a helping hand. That simplistic analysis is what most people seem to accept without question or investigation. And that is where the fear of “socialism” originates. 

While millions of voters continue to bask in such gross miscalculation and ignorance, the wealthiest in this country are robbing us blind with the cooperation of certain officials in our government. Instead of learning the truth about corporate socialism, we still fail to see what they are doing to the VAST MAJORITY. (For more detail, see my postings of 3/3 and 3/10/2016) 

• It is not by accident that social welfare for the rich far outweighs welfare for the poor and otherwise challenged populations; (by about 2 to 1 according to several web sites) 
• It is not by accident that the vast number of citizens being robbed of their tax dollars are kept in the dark about the real social welfare fraud (‘corporate socialism’) of having their tax dollars stolen by the rich to spend on self-aggrandizement. 
• It is not by accident that those who work for a living and pay their taxes with fewer and fewer allowable deductions are being fed a line that is wholly untrue – that government programs for those who are poor and/or challenged equate to a socialism that controls every aspect of life and work. That is pure nonsense. 
• IT IS A CALCULATED STRATEGY of mainly conservative capitalists -- who benefit enormously from the current Tax Code and Tax Rate Schedule -- that the more voters they can scare with the unexplained ‘flag’ word “SOCIALISM,” the greater their chances of acquiring even more lucrative benefits from the tax payments of lower bracket tax payers. 
• WORSE: THEIR CALCULATED STRATEGY IS WORKING! 

Let’s get down to the bottom line on this: we are being taken to the cleaners by a group of people and corporations professing to be “free-market” capitalists who oppose something called “socialism,” which they define as “government interference with a free market,” or “government handouts” to people who don’t deserve the largesse of government because they are, by and large, not earning their own way. They characterize these people as “parasites” drawing down the hard-earned dollars that the rest of us pay as taxes. 

“Socialism” for them comes down to government over-regulation of their profit-making and putting their tax money in the wrong pockets! They want it all, and they are out to get it! And the way they get it is to control how government functions! 

So, let us call them out for who they are: these are “national socialists” masquerading as capitalists. They believe in authoritarian government, ethnic (white) nationalism and economic cooperation between the state and capital enterprise. They believe that government is one more entity to control; one more tool for supporting easy profits, and one more source of revenue to confiscate. These are capitalists who hide their motives; these are corporate socialists who control people and governments and organizations with money that dictates who can do what to whom. They don’t hire lawyers and lobbyists and fixers for show; they hire them to do all the work necessary to get rid of government regulation -- like directing the flow of tax money into their accounts; fixing whatever elections or official appointments they can, monetarily supporting (‘bribing’) officials and office-holders who can help them the most; keeping them safe from “the Law”. 

Control of government is what they seek, and all the free market rhetoric and capitalist jargon is inside language for keeping their real intentions under wraps. Donald J. Trump is the epitome of such fabrication, and the fact that he sometimes parades it in public dismays these national socialists who don’t want their strategies and lies to be in full view of everyone lest too many citizen consumers catch on to their conspiracy and their form of socialism. This type of national socialism existed in many European countries in the 1930s and '40s, notably in Germany and Italy, and is re-emerging both there and here in this century. 

By electing (and using) Donald Trump, these national socialists have already captured control of the U.S. Senate and are closing in on the Judiciary. They already control our elections and are intent on winning back the House in 2020, while maintaining the Senate and the White House. They are already filling the Republican campaign coffers through their PACs and are continuing to back Trump with their wealth. 

DON’T BE BAMBOOZLED! Social programs and policies that insure help for the basic needs of families in our society (attention to the “General Welfare” as prescribed in our Constitution’s Preamble) administered by government and distributed by private vendors and agencies are NOT the source of societal dysfunction or disruption, and do not fit the full definition of “socialism.” 

Rather, it is the national corporate socialists who are seeking to bring government and society under their conspiratorial control. They are the ones pulling the strings of government and they are the ones who keep workers and unions and women and wage-earners and society itself in check the better to control their own destiny and future profit-margins. 

Targeting the right perpetrator is often half the battle. Instead of wasting money and dubious effort to cut Food subsidies, subsidized housing, Head Start, WIC and every “social service insurance” program, we need to shift focus to concentrate on what certain candidates for high office are attempting to tell us. 

Our enemy is not the public insurance programs (like Medicaid and Medicare) funded and distributed by government through mainly private entities. The real culprits are those corporations who pay little or no taxes; who control elections and legislation with their wealth; who dictate terms of Trade deals with other countries; who seek to establish private ownership of schools and colleges so that their ‘kind’ never again need to support public schools, but can spread their agenda at private institutions of learning. 

If we don’t focus our sights on the right target, we shall follow the lead of Donald Trump into the black hole of a national socialism that favors dictatorial power, subjugation of the poor; control of the middle class and restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, religion, etc. Meanwhile, the already wealthy will continue to confiscate all the profit they can from a cooperative government and a consuming public controlled by an elitist aristocracy accumulating benefits from a Tax Code that escapes any meaningful oversight by anyone. 

If we don’t get it straight in 2020, we may never have another chance. The walls of national socialism are closing in, and wannabe Fuhrer Donald Trump is in league with the builders of those walls. 

That’s why he has spent his time in office: 

• capturing the Congress and Judiciary and the Republican Party 
• de-constructing government departments by appointing loyal heads that do only his bidding
• grabbing onto other authoritarian countries and leaders who are eager to answer his call to interfere in our elections and our institutions 
• leading many to believe that he knows everything that is needed to make America Great Again 
• putting himself in the center of every issue and every controversy and creating diversions as needed
• making himself the source and imperial leader of this national socialist movement that seeks eventual control of every aspect of our government 

Our first line of defense is to impeach Trump and/or to reject him and his co-conspirators in the U.S. Congress (especially the Senate) at the polls. Then we can turn our full attention to dismantling the web of deceit and abuse, the power and control of those corporate socialists who rob the rest of us every day of every year by manipulation of our federal Treasury. 

Corporate socialism is the scary culprit we must target, not the social insurance programs that under gird the general welfare of our people. 

REJECT TRUMP and HIS LIES!  

VOTE AGAINST CORPORATE SOCIALISM!

  

WILL ONE MAN TRUMP THE LAW?

 No President is above the Law.  In fact, every President has the solemn obligation by oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  In most circles that would mean obeying the Constitution and protecting it from denigration, undermining, violation or overthrow.  A President who puts his own personal and political status or success or business above what the Constitution summons him to do, who calls on foreign nations to interfere in the internal workings of this government for his own political benefit, would be in violation of that oath and make him a candidate for impeachment.

Likewise, legislators and officeholders have taken on the same obligation by their oath to uphold that same Constitution.  When legislators attempt to derail a unique and indispensable obligation endowed to their House by raiding a Committee charged with taking testimony by deposition --  on the mistaken assumption that they have a right to defend their President -- they have violated their solemn oath of office and disobeyed the rules of their House. 

The foolish prank visited upon the work of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, by two dozen rogue Republican congressmen is an affront to all of us who believe in our Constitution, and in the unique function given to each branch of government to balance the use of power by other branches. In other words, the disruption of an impeachment inquiry in order to delay that process is a violation of their oath of office because it undermines the Constitutional mandate that gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. 

Like it or not, once accusations and charges have been brought to the House (as they have been by a Special Counsel report, by career civil servants, by whistle-blowers and by the actions and words of former employees of the Executive Office) the obligation to move an impeachment inquiry forward was clear enough to cause the Speaker to call for that impeachment inquiry.  No other action was necessary at that point – no resolution, no declaration and no vote (today confirmed by a federal court judge). 

As to denigrating the process by railing about transparency and delaying a deposition as a means of defending their president, the rogue congressmen have undermined the separate but equal status of the Congress granted by the Constitution, damaged their status as an independent check on the Executive, and flaunted the rules of their own House that are meant to enable the constitutional process of impeachment to run an orderly course.  They are not just immature frat-type brothers; they are violators of their sacred oath.

Besides, they are in error as to there being no representation of their point of view since each Committee involved in the impeachment process has its full complement of Republican representatives.  And, they also missed the boat on transparency since a closed-door hearing is a usual procedure undertaken when national security is on-the-line (or crucial evidence is being gathered).  In fact, by bringing electronic devices into a safe room they violated protocol and by recording sounds, opened the way for outside forces to co-opt vital information. Their actions are much closer to treason the they are to a mere stunt.

Now let us return to what has become a bête noire in this whole debacle:

§  Is the President above the Law?

§   Is it remotely possible that he cannot be held responsible, while in office, for any crime he may commit? 

§  Is it true that he cannot even be investigated for a possible crime, or stopped from committing a crime? 

§  And finally, is it stated anywhere (except in DOJ policy) that a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime?

The answers to those questions (most likely by the courts) will likely determine the future of our form of government.  Should any federal court find in favor of the President on this issue, the Rule of Law will be null and void; the Presidency will be an imperial one run by a despot, and the Congress will be a creature of the President having lost its independence and its ability to check what a president does. We will be the victims of a coup d’état carried out by a rogue president and his henchmen. 

Let me tell you why I say this would be the undoing of our constitution.  In addition to his oath of office, there are ten words in the Constitution that speak against this foolishness of a president being above the Law; or being un-indictable and untouchable while in office.  They are found in Article II, section 3: “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. It is impossible for a president to faithfully execute the laws and himself be a lawbreaker at the same time. Let’s take a deeper look at two of those words: ‘faithfully’ and ‘execute.’

“Faithfully” = an adverb that describes the manner in which the execution of the laws is to be done.  “Faithfully” has first to do with thoroughness in the performance of a duty, and second with the steadfast fidelity (‘devotion’) necessary in that performance and thirdly with the constancy, dependability and firm reliability that such a duty demands.

“Execute” = an action verb meaning to give force or effect to a law; to carry out or carry through the intent or essence of the law, and to enforce its provisions.

There it is in black and white for all to read and heed.  The President has the unique responsibility and obligation to faithfully execute the laws with steadfast devotion, constant dependability and reliable thoroughness. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a president is above the law or exempt from being questioned about the law or about his solemn duty to “faithfully execute” the laws.  In fact, this obligation (implied by the words “take care”) places him in the role of a faithful defender of the law; therefore, for him to break any law would be not only an abuse of his office, a breech of his oath and an impeachable offense, it would be a nullification of his role as Executor of the laws of the land, and would thus invalidate his Executive power.  In other words, a lawbreaker (a crook or criminal) in the White House is like a fox allowed into a hen house – order and safety are abandoned, chaos reigns and lives are threatened.   

We are indeed facing a constitutional crisis. If the Supreme Court (or a federal Appellate Court) does not uphold the true meaning of these ten words, we shall have witnessed the downfall of our system of checks and balances that defines the independent and co-equal nature of our three branches of government.  It will mean that the ability to interpret the intent and the content of laws by the Supreme Court will have been conceded to the president who will have the power to determine which laws are valid and which are not, in his opinion.  It will mean that the Congress will no longer have the power to make the laws because any of them will be able to be overturned by a president who is above the law and can therefore declare what they mean or don’t mean.  The congressional veto override power will thus be invalidated, and Congress will have lost its power to legislate any laws other than those the president approves. 

The white supremacists, the neo-Nazis, the KKK, the hate groups and the Alt Right are doing all they can to restrain their joy over the possibility that the SCOTUS could actually by ONE VOTE give them the white nationalist Fuhrer they long to embrace and hail (Heil?) as their North (Norse?) star.  ONE VOTE on the Supreme Court is all it will take to turn this democracy into a despotic regime.  ONE VOTE! 

But the ONE VOTE that got away is just as important to question right now.   The one vote that is now absent from this moment is one we should never forget and that is President Obama’s nominee to the SCOTUS who was never considered by the Senate for appointment.  His name was Merrick Garland.  His nomination was blocked from consideration by the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who made a habit of blocking much of President Obama’s agenda.  It is incumbent upon all progressives, liberals, and Democrats to never forget this dastardly act of obstruction by Moscow Mitch and his minions. 

One of the first acts of a democratic majority in the House and Senate should be an Amendment to the Constitution that forbids any such non-consideration of judicial appointees in the future.  A foundation for it could be started simply by undoing the Senate rules that allow any senator or leader to block appointments or legislation by a filibuster, member privilege or super majority.  The role of the Majority Leader and his powers under the Rules should also be examined and deflated where necessary.  We must not allow any political Party to dictate to the Senate or the House by partisan rules a direction that limits or blocks either House from acting in the best interests of the People.  Mitch McConnell is a blight on our democratic values and process.  The voters in Kentucky need finally to call him to account for mis-representing them by demeaning and undermining the powers and solemn obligations of an Upper House that was meant to stand as the deeply wise, deliberative and benevolent chamber that would be a check on any words and actions that might harm our Republic.  Stand up and contribute a bold legacy to your children and your grandchildren by rejecting and retiring master manipulator Mitch McConnell.

Finally, let us speak about those future generations.  What are we leaving on their plates?  Well, it’s not all bad; but, it’s not all good either.  Let me put ten issues in three categories: the GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY. 

GOOD                                                              BAD                                 UGLY

Progress in Civil Rights/Human Rights                Lost Sec.Voter Rights Act    Laws restrict voter rights

More acceptance of diversity/equal opportunity   Laws discriminate ag. Grps  Rogue police shoot kids

Mobilization of all ages to save planet earth         GOP disbelieve climate chg Corps. poison food/environ

Public favors sensible gun restrictions by a lot     Congress fails to act             39,773 gun deaths in 2017

Public schools make up 90+% of schs. In USA    Rural/inner city less fundg   Pub.ed. under DOE attack

Infrastructure widely recog. as major prob.          Congress refuses to act         More lives lost/bad structs.

Technology widens possibilities for good             Privacy compromised          Growth in Monopoly contrl

Good/Excellent jobs avail. in certain skill areas   Many without proper skills   Jobs disappear/wages stag.

Some corporations are good citizens                     Some feed off others            Attack life/liberty/happ  

More people run for office/protest/involved          Gov’t ineffective/divided     Corrupt/abuse/control  

No president in this country is above the law (unless that president becomes a dictator).  Creating the possibility or milieu for that to happen is what unquestioning and unethical sycophants do (and are doing as we speak). Fortunately, we have career non-partisan civil servants in our government who speak truth to power, but that will do little good or have little effect if 40% of voters and a majority of the Senate support and defend actions and words that can lead to the overturning of our Constitution and our democratic values and ideals. 

Let us not waiver from reality or truth in this moment of constitutional crisis.  Let us support the process of impeachment. Let us protest the corruption and damage being done to our form of governing and let us vow to fight to rid ourselves of every sycophant who does not come forth to defend  the Constitution and our rights and freedoms.  

After the invasion of the House Intelligence Committee hearing by rogue Republicans in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that they made unsafe and vulnerable to foreign adversaries, we are not in the mode of politics-as-usual.  Those “suits” (with their invisible Red Caps) were like the “brown shirts” and the uniformed “storm troopers” of not so long ago – they ranted; they raved; they shouted, they threatened; they blocked a legitimate Committee from doing their constitutional duty for more than five hours.  This is the initiation of a Right-wing attack on the legitimate work of impeachment assigned in our Constitution solely to the House of Representatives to accomplish.  No one has the right to intervene in this process, to block it or to undermine its power to check a president who has been broadly accused of the abuse of his powers.

This is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country, not their Party.  We must recognize the cancer that is growing on this presidency, this Trumpian Republican Party, and in this Senate.  If we want to preserve our Union and our Constitution, we must pledge what Patrick Henry called our “sacred honor.”  We have no other choice except the kind of tyrannical dictatorship that our Founding Fathers beckoned us to reject.  In the spirit of the late congressman, the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, we must assert that no matter the cost, we must stand firm in support of our Constitution and be prepared to address the question that will be asked by young people in the future:  “what did you do” when our Constitution was threatened? Will we be able to say we stood against potential destroyers in their attempts to eliminate this democracy; this Rule of Law; this home of the Free and the Brave.  Will we be able to say we helped to secure a meaningful and enhanced future for our children and grandchildren, and for all those who will inherit the consequences of this battle? 

NOW is the TIME TO DECIDE and to ACT!

WHO ARE The REAL CONSERVATORS?

I never thought I would say this, but guess what?  The true conservatives remaining in this nation are not necessarily who you think they are.  The basic principles of conservatism have turned out to be less secure with the Republican Party than we have been led to believe.  The destruction of those principles began when Richard Nixon launched his attack on the integrity of the presidency that laid some of the foundation for a Donald Trump and his outright attacks on those principles.    

Instead of pursuing that intriguing subject, let us look at some definitions of the word “conservative.” (New World dictionary)

“Conservative” adjective –

1. “conserving or tending to conserve; preservative

2. “tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these       

“Conserve” – “to keep from being damaged, lost, or wasted; save”

Those definitions aren’t enough to describe political conservatism in this country right now.  We need to explore further to identify what some Conservatives claim as defining principles.   We begin from a bit different perspective at a site known as factmyth.com. 

“From a historical perspective we can define the terms conservative, liberal, and progressive as:

• Liberal: Can mean classical liberal (individual rights ideology rooted in the late 1600 – 1700’s) or social liberal (an evolution of classical liberalism that includes… response to the age of Robber Barons as social justice). This term is sometimes used as meaning “not a conservative.” In current usage, the U.S. classical liberals are called libertarians, and social liberals are called “liberals.”
• Progressive (or Radical): Always means wanting to push forward. Progressivism typically implies altruism, but not all good intentions have positive outcomes. Likewise, radical typically implies “going too far,” but not all radical movements have negative outcomes.
• Conservative: usually opposes liberalism or progressivism. As liberalism, socialism, and progressivism changed, what conservatism meant changed in response. The Conservative Federalists of the late 1700’s wanted order… after changes in the parties, modern Republicans often ran on a radically conservative platform. They may, for example, favor state-enforced religious laws. Meanwhile, progressive movements like Prohibition have conservative aspects to them.”  (factmyth.com)

Based on that last sentence, we shall proceed to examine who the real conservators and preservers are in our current circumstances.  It is not conservative Republicans or Donald J. Trump.  Clearly, Trump and his minions are more tied to the classical conservative model, as indicated by the following. (factmyth.com)

•  classical conservatism focuses on authority and order through traditional/classical power structures like the church and state (it favors authority of the few or one, and not individual liberty of the many).  In its social form (social conservatism) it favors social hierarchy and tradition, and not social equality.
• FACT: Conservatism came from the Enlightenment thinkers, although we can trace the history of conservatism back as far as we can trace the history of Monarchies…

TIP: In general, it works like this, each term considers how fast change should occur (either change forward toward “progress” or change “conserving” back to a less liberal or progressive time).

According to Russell Kirk, a visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Conservatism is claimed to be “a body of sentiments, not a system of ideological dogmata”.  Nonetheless, he offered ten principles to which he felt confident most conservatives would subscribe.  But he is not necessarily describing classical conservatism that appears most relevant to Trump tweets and policies. We shall address 4 of the 10 principles here and save the rest for another posting.

1.      There exists an enduring moral order; moral truths are permanent.  There are two aspects or types: the inner order of the soul and the outer order of the commonwealth.  Kirk claims: “A society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society – no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution…” In other words: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties than the whole force of the common enemy.  While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” – Samuel Adams

In contrast to a permanent moral order, Trump believes in and practices:

·      lying as a tool of propaganda;

·      taking revenge against anyone who criticizes him;

·      demolishing or destroying political opponents;

·      abusing children by locking them in cages as a tool of discouraging immigrants seeking asylum,

·      threats to export children and adults who had been temporarily allowed in this country to receive special medical treatment but who would most likely die without it after deportation

·       enabling killing of Kurdish children by Turkey’s army after withdrawal of American troops in Northern Syria.

·      use of vile language;

·      advocates abuse of women;

·      often refuses to pay for services or products;

·      uses his office to enrich himself and his family;

·      admits to disobeying laws like tax requirements or reporting of foreign nation influence-peddling and attempts to interfere in our elections  

·      disrespects constitutional provisions that limit his powers

·      incites others to violence with his words and with videos, the latest of which shows him attacking media members and other “enemies”

·      invites interference from foreign nations into our elections and uses those nations to advance his agenda and election campaign 

Apparently, Trump and his supporters are anything but committed to the moral order, while liberals and progressives are attempting to resurrect a social morality dedicated to greater inclusion, greater equality and greater regard for the needs and dignity of all people in a society that stands for those principles and values.  Their H.R. #1 bill also intends to strengthen the ethical standards for individual officeholders.  Plus, the very act of initiating the power of impeachment procedures is an attempt to restore the order that is missing under this president and his administration.

The real preservers of this first principle of moral order are not conservatives, especially those Republicans in Congress who have abandoned morality to support ethical disorder, abandonment of principles, and financial gain for themselves. Republicans have blatantly used the institutions of government to bilk the people (such as gutting regulations that control cheating of consumers by business). Department heads have been caught using taxpayer funds for personal travel; taking advantage of insider information to enhance their stock options or to improve the profit margin of companies in which they have an interest. 

Moreover, they have used the tax system as cover for their fraudulent assessments of personal wealth, but mostly used that system to lower their taxes.  And, the “swamp” that supposedly existed in Washington under Liberals has been “overrun” by the many creatures of the Trump administration who have gone to jail for carrying out illegal actions on his behalf.  John Adams’ words resonate through the centuries – this administration has lost all its principles and ethics and invited foreign and domestic forces to devour our individual and national soul.

The real conservators are the much-maligned Liberals and Progressives who have acted to preserve a moral imperative of decency and justice for all.  It is the Progressives who have acted to preserve voting rights, women’s rights, children’s health and education, affordable health care, a fairer justice system, to establish a decent minimum wage. Not the Republicans.  In fact, Democrats have passed much legislation to address national problems and needs that has been blocked and discarded by Senate Republicans.

2.      Conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity…that enables people to live together peaceably.  Kirk says: “When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions…the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior” to the one overthrown.  Order, justice and freedom are the…result of centuries of trial and refection and sacrifice; that continuity of a society must not be interrupted.”  In other words, “No one…can come…to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of…society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.”—Will Durant

Kirk and Durant never met Donald J. Trump! He has already captured (and probably destroyed) the Republican Party.  On that path, he has also captured the leadership of a Republican-controlled Senate and obliterated that institution and its standards of rigorous debate and legislative prowess. Instead, its leadership now plays lapdog to the Executive. 

Using his appointive powers (and the Senate’s non-opposition) he has created a Judiciary beholden to him to the extent that one of his nominees to an appeals court has just written a dissenting opinion that creates a false interpretation of the Constitution that is already perfectly clear on where the sole authority for impeachment lies – with the House of Representatives.  She asserts that the President has a right to be included in that process. Liberals and Progressives oppose that false interpretation of the clear intent of the Founders.

 

Democrats have also asserted the primacy and importance of public schools, the right of both houses of Congress to formulate their own rules to maintain their independence, and the importance of government regulation of Trade, Commerce and financial interests; the importance of placing more regulators in certain departments like the EPA, the IRS and the border patrol.  Conservatives under Trump are steadily de-constructing the federal government which the Constitution enshrined in the first place because the separate states in a Confederation were not able to fulfill a broader responsibility for national issues and problems.    

In addition, Trump has been the catalyst for undermining elections, not only inviting foreign powers to interfere, but encouraging restrictions on voting for certain groups.  Liberals and Progressives oppose the destruction of these institutions and have passed legislation to overturn such de-construction only to have that legislation blocked by a “conservative” recalcitrant Senate that cares little for continuity or equality. 

3.      Conservatives believe in the principle of prescription, that is, things established by “immemorial usage.”  According to Kirk, “In politics, we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for…the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than…petty private rationality.” 

Interesting, is it not, that such a principle does not rule out “prejudice” or the historic devastation of the Civil War fought over the slavery of others. 

Is it possible that this conservative principle of prescription also includes a loyalty to precedents like racial discrimination, white supremacy,  placing women in secondary positions and salaries, working to diminish labor unions, being intolerant of anything associated with LBGT, attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion or favoring air/water/ground pollution by chemical effluent from certain factories?  Does it include the time-tested practice of banks withholding or blocking mortgages for minorities or the lowering of taxes for a small percentage of the population?  All of these and more negative precedents meet the definition of time-tested standards and norms.

It is sheer folly to live by a principle that tests and memorializes one side of human nature and not the other.  Human beings, and the things they memorialize have flaws as well as assets and negative as well as positive outcomes.

Perhaps liberals are more careful conservators or preservers of what is positive, like laws that address racial equality, union rights, women’ rights, equal opportunity, social justice, health care, and so on.  It is my contention that Republicans tend to prescribe many more time-tested negatives than positives for the people, while Progressives seek to prescribe far more investment, support, encouragement and opportunity for those traits that reflect a regard for the dignity and well-being of humankind.

4.      Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.  Kirk says: “The conservative…acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences.  Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.”  Prudence doesn’t exist in the Trump vocabulary or in his toolbox (unless it can be used to advance his own interests).  All one needs to do is look at the present decision to pull troops out of northern Syria, to invite the Turks to invade so they can build a “neutral zone” on the Turkish-Syrian border, abandon the Kurds to certain genocide, and then to direct the  pull-out of all US troops from Syria which will lead to the resurgence of thousands of ISIS fighters. 

This foreign policy disaster began with a phone call between Trump and Erdogan of Turkey that is probably now assigned to the same highest classified server on which several of Trump’s indiscreet conversations may be hidden.  This is not prudent in any sense; nor is it diplomatic or based on a weighing of consequences.  This is a sudden and slashing decision that benefits one other tyrant: Vladimir Putin.

Prudence is epitomized by Liberals and Progressives who have long advocated and worked to develop the most effective and affordable system for universal healthcare coverage. Prudence has also characterized the Liberal approach to abortion, space exploration, work with the U.N. and other international groups and with coalitions of all kinds, especially those related to trade and defense.

    

While “sudden and slashing” reforms are attributed to Progressive Liberals, that negative attribute just doesn’t fit the record they have compiled.  To Conservatives who are reluctant to change anything, proposed change always looks like it is sudden simply because Republicans have delayed any real action for so long on issues like gun violence control, climate change, immigration reform, healthcare, women’s rights, minority rights, etc. that any change seems to them like a slashing, sudden assault.

One last thought on this subject:  progressivism has been (and will continue to be) the saving grace in terms of the advancement of rights, freedoms and responsibilities simply because Conservatives do not know the difference between delay/obstruction and prudence.  Progressive Liberals know that prudence means well-conceived, well-researched, well-thought-out, well-executed, well-evaluated and well-fixed when required. Conservatives (especially right now) have no clue as to these positive meanings for prudence.  Instead, their locked-in approach is to de-construct government itself and destroy government programs that lend a helping-hand to anyone other than their wealthy friends and sponsors.  Their prudence translates to inability to confront problems like climate change (and more important: the pending annihilation of life on this planet) or the need for universal affordable health care to reduce the financial ruin that confront too many families today; the need to rebuild our infrastructure before we become a 2^nd rate economic power.  They cannot even produce a vote on important reform legislation already passed by the Democratic majority in the House (environmental protection, election reform, gun violence control related to universal background checks, infrastructure repair, etc.).  Republican “prudence” (translated as obstructionist-do-nothingness) is costing us our future. 

Those whose “prudence” won’t allow them to throw off the destructive influence of Trump and the puppets dancing to his tune (like the automatons of any tyrant) -- to vote for real progress, for preservation of our values and the goodness of our institutions, plus for the acquired best practices of our democratic system –- let them suffer the consequences of their actions.  Any more years of this false form of conservatism will destroy their sense of satisfaction and unquestioning loyalty and approval of the destructive fascist values of this authoritarian leader, (Fuhrer)Trump.

We are on the Brink, and Trump intends to push many of us into the abyss below because that is what he has always done with “lesser” people.  His list keeps growing: Islamic and Mexican immigrants, all those who need government help such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, Affordable Health Care, TARP, Head Start, etc. or those who seek abortions, or Planned Parenthood or Section 8 housing.  Then there are those people who are homeless, or mentally ill or living with developmental disabilities – they are expendable in his mind. 

Of course, others are not just expendable, they are useful as tools for his propaganda – just like those children and families seeking asylum in this country – he separates and detains them in cages without access to hygienic conditions or even to outside recreation and lets us know they are being used as examples to other refugee/immigrant families to warn them not to come here looking for entry to this country.

As we have seen, of all his miserable decisions about the welfare of human beings, he has abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria in order to make a deal with Turkey to create for themselves a “neutral zone” in northern Syria along the Turkish border.   The Kurds are being slaughtered and Trump does nothing except threaten financial sanctions against Turkey.  And WHY has this happened? As a gift to Vladimir Putin say many analysts.

Who is next on his list?  Perhaps the rural poor or the family farmer who voted for him and then received the negative results of his Trade War with China. Perhaps veterans whose benefits keep getting cut in Trump budgets.  Maybe seniors who are a drain on resources for Medicare and long-term disability.  Or maybe just more women, like those who supported him, but more likely those supporting his opposition – they are the activists who present the biggest threat to his re-election.  But then – who knows…it could be anybody!  Take care all of you because the authoritarian tyrant in the White House believes he can do anything that advances his cause and his power.  That chaos in Syria and the Senate and at the southern border means that government might no longer be your protector and advocate but could become the centralized authority favored by classical conservatives which has no other interest than its own power.  We are all in danger from a pretender to a throne of his own creation.

FOOTNOTE:  Recently, I saw General James Mattis (Ret.) on Meet the Press.  Now, there’s a true Conservative:  places his trust in the American people, believes in building trust and support between allies; refused to put politics in front of duty (resigned from a political position over a disagreement on principle); willing to speak out when circumstances demand it; committed to principles of duty, civility and civilian control.  He is concerned with the integrity of America, the military, and his own actions; understanding of the importance of diplomacy; unwilling to speak ill of others or to join in such “swampiness”; concerned with the morale of the military and the well-being of his troops, and ultimately of the American people and this nation.

It doesn’t matter whether he is a Democrat or Republican; Conservative or Liberal.  He embodies principles that illuminate the greatness of this Republic, reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.  Is he perfect?  No, but perfection is not what we seek.  We seek strong commitment to principles and values that enhance the lives and just aspirations of this nation and its people; plus, the extension of such to humankind.  We are beginning to see government professionals -- diplomats, military, administrators -- come forward, some as whistle-blowers, but most as concerned citizens, to say “enough is enough,” Donald Trump is destroying our nation and his destructive policies must not be allowed to stand. 

KICK HIM OUT and LOCK HIM UP!