Definitive Russian Collusion

Dear Friends:

Occasionally a close friend of mine seeks a platform to share his knowledge. Following is an expose, on the “Russian Collusion,” as observed by my friend.  Please read it carefully and take it to heart.  Thank you Jonathan Swift for your insight and courageous display.

Since being legitimately elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump has been under investigation for Russian Collusion.  We may discount the FACT that far more evidence exist of the Clinton Russian Collusion than for any Trump Russian Collusion.

As a long time supporter of Donald Trump, who was very very pleased by his legitimate election, I now step forward with a confession regarding collusion.

I am diabetic dependent on constant blood sugar readings and insulin injection.  Day after day for years I have been subjected to needles insertions to run those tests or inject insulin.  It has been terrible, to say the least.

Well a miracle occurred on both fronts.  Donald Trump was elected president, AND, one of the big pharma companies invented a monitoring device for blood sugar.

The monitoring device means that I only need to inject one needle every ten days and then read my blood sugar levels fifty times per day if I want to.  A very serious improvement.  There is a downside.

The new monitoring device must be changed every ten days.  Once it has been changed there is a several hour delay process while the monitor calibrates to my blood sugar levels.  Still substantially better than the old finger stick method every couple of hours.

Yet, there is a relationship between Russian Collusion and the new monitor.

The development of the monitor was completely funded by secret Russian financial interests.  Initially, their objective was to simply monitor how Americans health was generally.  But like every conspiracy minded state they quickly expanded it.

The new monitor records the data and stores it “on-board.”  Then every ten days the data is transmitted, via satellite to a secret data retrieval system housed in three site around the nation (one is right here in Utah).  The data is then secretly passed to the Russians through another secret channel controlled by none other than Donald Trump…PERSONALLY.

But the collusion does not end there.  The device also has the ability to reverse the process.  Russians can secretly download information into the monitoring device.  Once the information is downloaded into the device it is circulated through the blood stream.

In 2016 the Russians downloaded mind-altering information to the millions of American citizens.  The altered information was instructions that they were to vote for Donald Trump for president.  There is no other reason, besides potential incompetence and undeniable corruption, that Hillary would have been defeated.

Imagine the influence this must have.  Over 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes every year.  The numbers are almost as staggering as the number of people associated with the Clintons, that have died unexpectedly.

Most recently, through highly sophisticated program description, I was able to “hack” the incoming data from the Russians.  Over the past several months they have been downloading secret subtle messages that Americans should not trust Mueller, and several other Deep State operatives.  Hence, there is a growing mistrust for the incompetent and unnecessary special prosecutor.  The evidence it there, people.  The evidence is there.

Beware!!  Your liberty no longer belongs to you, but to the Russians.

Modestly submitted,

Jonathan Swift

Advertisements

The ins and outs of Article V of the US Constitution.

I recently posted the following on Facebook:

There is a lot of discussion regarding an Article 5 convention, or convention of the states.

A clarification is needed.

A Constitutional Convention may only be called by Congress. Congress may submit a constitutional amendment to the states, of which 3/4 must ratify. Alternately, 2/3 of the states may “apply” to Congress to hold a convention.

If Congress consents to hold a convention it is the determination of Congress to set the parameters of Amendments to be considered. It is clear that no restrictions exist as to what amendments can or cannot be considered.

Once the Convention has completed its work 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. It is the disposition of Congress to determine how ratification shall be completed. Two apparent alternatives are: 1) Congress may choose to have all amendments ratified jointly, or severally. 2) Congress may dictate whether the ratification process shall occur by the state legislatures or by conventions in each state. Those powers of Congress are stipulated in Article I of the Constitution.

The question for each of us to answer is whether a convention will be support by those whom we elect to Congress. The power rest solely with Congress to call such a convention, while the obligation to apply for a convention rests solely with the state legislatures.

Hope this is of assistance.

 

Background

That commentary generated a little discussion, and of course challenges to my conclusions.  I will here attempt to provide a little more detail.

By way of definition when I speak of Congress I presume both Houses, unless I state otherwise.

Furthermore, the original colonies, under the Articles of Confederation, were more of a union for defensive purposes rather than an actual unified nation, even though there was a president (Not George Washington).  Due to rebellion (See Shays Rebellion) in some states leaders at the time, particularly James Madison, sought to strengthen the union of states by creating a more powerful central government.  This should only be viewed as a need for operation improvements.

However, some advocates for a Constitutional Convention, were much more progressive toward a more “Powerful” central government.  Among those with that intent were Alexander Hamilton.  Multiple sources claim that he even preferred that the Chief Executive (president) be entitled as “King.”  They were not quite ready to fully leave all of the British customs behind them in a new nation.

Not to become too historical, but to clarify, there were generally two groups of thought;  The Federalist and the Anti-federalist.  The Federalist pursued ratification of the new Constitution, which gave the central government greater authority.  The Anti-federalists wanted to curtail centralized authority as much as reasonable.  Neither group opposed revisions to the existing compact between the colonies, just the limits on centralized power.

Hamilton was among the Federalist in persuasion.  His writings, in The Federalist Papers, reflected his own tone of wanting a stronger central authority.  Just as a personal observation I would propose that many of the “conservative voices,” quoting The Federalist Papers, of today would in fact have been Anti-federalists back then.

Rationale

Under Article V of the US Constitution (hereafter only referred to as the article) Congress was given the power to propose amendments to the Constitution, when they deemed it necessary.

Congress retained the right to:

  • Propose amendments
  • Call a convention
    • The convention was to propose amendments, not impose amendments.
  • Propose how ratification of amendments is to be conducted.
    • Such ratification could occur by
      • either the individual state legislatures, or
      • by convention within the several states.

States retained the rights to:

  • Have their respective legislatures “Apply” to Congress to convene a Convention
    • Such convention would only propose Amendment
    • Two thirds of the states must be a party to the application
      • For today that means thirty-four states.

Either by the direct congressional process, or by convention, any amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.  That equates to thirty-eight states.

Now, let’s examine the sentence structure regarding the setting of a convention.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;…”

  • The Congress, modified by its component houses, shall propose amendments.
  • Congress may do so only upon a two-thirds vote. [This modifies congressional proposal authority]
  • The legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34) must apply to Congress to call a convention. [This modifies how amendments may be proposed, as an alternative to congressional proposal authority.  It is not a stand alone process independent of Congress]
  • The Convention may propose Amendments to the Constitution.
  • Congress must “deem it necessary” to call a convention, based upon the application of the requisite number of states. [This is a further modification of the sentence.  Congress has authority to call a convention, IF they determine it to be necessary.]
  • Three-fourths of the states must ratify any amendments.

Now to a final point.  There are two concepts in the first sentence which create a great deal of confusion.  The first is the phrase “deem it necessary.”  The second is the word “or” in the second line above.

The trouble with these two items is what they mean when used together in this sentence.  The problem stems from the use of the comma in the English language.  There are ten rules of construction for use of a comma in a compound sentence.  Only one of those rules apply:

Separate independent clauses joined by coordinating conjunctions.[1] 

The coordinating conjunctions are andbutfornororso, and yet. Independent clauses contain both a subject and a verb that function as a complete sentence.  Thus, the sentence in the Constitution (under standard English grammar) must contain a subject AND a verb for each clause.  Otherwise, it is simply a series of items dependent upon the initial subject and verb.  Let’s examine the sentence’s initial clauses, removing superfluous content..

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

Here then are the two apparent clauses:

The Congress (subject) shall propose(verb) Amendments to this Constitution (predicate).

on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States (subject).  Note there is no verb, thus making this statement a dependent rather than an independent clause.

Now, finally, the way in which this second statement becomes a independent clause (possibly a separate sentence) is to take it in it’s full context on the entire sentence to read as, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

Conclusion

It is important to remember that the intention of the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen the alliance between the states, by providing needed authority to the central government.

Keep in mind that neither the people, state legislatures, Congress, nor SCOTUS are the supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution itself is the supreme Law of the Land. All judges of any court presuming authority within the central government are in fact subject to Congress. See Article III Section 1. first sentence. [2]

Only the states by a 3/4 majority may amend the Constitution (as described above), which would thereby modify the supreme Law of the Land. It is one of the checks and balances within the central government, proposed by the founders and ratified by the states. It does not diminish the powers and authority of Congress, but only makes them subject to a super majority of the states in rare cases.

Now, in conclusion, neither the authority of the states, people, or Congress is negated by the balancing of interests between those three branches of government (there are other branches also but they don’t explicitly relate to this matter).  To amend the Constitution requires them all to work together, in sync, with separate duties, to modify the Law of the Land.

The intent is to protect the nation from frivolous changes which may occur when people of nefarious designs want to push their agenda upon the entire population.[See my various discussions of Count My Vote and SB-54 in Utah.}

That Is The Way I See It.

 

  1.  https://www.brighthubeducation.com/english-homework-help/22944-the-use-of-commas-in-written-english/
2. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

 

Thought on Memorial Day 2018

In the United States of America, Memorial Day was traditionally on May 30.  It recognized the ultimate sacrifice, on the field of battle, of military personnel.  Literally, for thousands of years societies have commemorated those sacrifices.  Death in the warrior’s service, for the benefit of society, has held a special place of honor.  Since the early 1970s, the USA has chosen the last Monday in May of each year for the day of remembrance.

Nearing the end of the Civil War hundreds of Union soldiers died imprisoned in Confederate captivity.  A retired member of Congress, serving in the army, declared the Memorial in May as the day to decorate the graves of the fallen.  The day, it is rumored, was selected as the one day when no Civil War Battles had occurred during the conflict.  Also rumored is the suggestion that the date was chosen because it was a time when flowers would be in bloom in all regions of the nation.

Yet, of greatest significance was the fact that ALL people ought to take a day of special remembrance.  For many of us, it was one day in 365.  For those buried in the silence of the grave, it was one of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of days in which their loved ones would always hold a piece of the deceased in the melancholy of their hearts.

What would cause men and women to rise to the occasion of war?  I seriously doubt that any of them enlisted to sacrifice their lives for their country.  I prefer to believe that each of them enlisted with a willingness to sacrifice all, if need be, for a higher calling.

The consummate battle in the history of the world has been to force people to do good.

This week we are celebrating something more than just won battles.

Today, celebrations and speeches are echoing over the hills and dales of Gettysburg. PA.  For several straight days 150 years ago The Union was driven back.  The Rebel cause was advancing.  Then the winds shifted.  The tide of freedom rolled in upon borderline that divided liberty from servitude.  When that tide receded it was blood red…from the blood of good men.

Of that massacre of men for the cause of liberty, Abraham Lincoln uttered these words, always to be remembered by every American, perhaps by all the literate world, “we cannot dedicate… we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground“.

It should not be lost to the eye, ear, heart, or mind of the casual observer that these events declared without flinching that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty”. (John F. Kennedy)

There is a doctrine unknown to much of the world.  I call it the doctrine of “original pride”.  Poorly summarized in simplistic terms it says that Lucifer fell from grace with God because of his pride.  He had the desire to force all men to be good.  Alternatively, Jesus Christ offered salvation not through force but through each person’s liberty.

Throughout history, the consummate battle has been between choice and compulsion.

The well-known dictators; Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Alexander the Great, King George, et al, have all professed to act in goodness to provide for their people.  In the process, they trampled that eternal right of choice.  In the interest of forcing upon the people what was presumed good they waged war against that which is truly good, the freedom to choose.  Millions of lives have lain wasted in heaps through the ages of time because one man occasionally garnered the support to oppress all men into presumed goodness, according to their narrow perspective of goodness.

The Declaration of Independence and the battle at Gettysburg, PA are but symbols of what mankind will do “for liberty” or “for force”.  Colonialists having crossed a raging ocean to choose to begin a new life of liberty proclaimed “We will not be slaves again”.  Abraham Lincoln paid the uttermost farthing to say to a group of people, most of whom he never met, nor would ever meet; you shall not be mastered, but rather shall be masters of your of choosing.

Throughout our various governments today there are thousands upon thousands of people overtly or subtly saying “I shall be your master…for your good!”  These people find it convenient to oppress some so that others may benefit.  Isn’t that good?!!!

Indeed it is not at all good! At best it is sufficient.  At its worst, it is the imposition of servitude…in the “false” name of good.

It has always been, and shall always be that those who would force good upon others will ultimately force dominion upon them also.

Once shackled by oppression there is but one means of escape.  It requires a hammer and chisel.  They will beat not solely upon the chains that incarcerate, but also upon the oppressor.  When one is forced to be good, if not them than the generations that follow shall beat out their liberty upon the anvil of oppression.

So, then, and now, the battle is really not about “good” at all.  The battle is about the liberty to choose.

“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

When we ALL become willing to beat our chains into plowshares we may rest assured that our swords and spears shall quickly follow course.

For each of us to hold a proverbial plowshare of liberty there must be some willing, though not seeking, to lay their very lives at our feet.  Such service and sacrifice deserve a moment or two of our time to dust off the ancient graves and place a Poppy thereon, of both the lions and the lambs which lie down side by side beneath our feet.

Rand Paul Statement

I am somewhat known among Utah Republicans and self-identified Conservatives.  Sometimes I appear to be very conservative and at other times almost left-leaning.  Some would toss me into the mix as a libertarian.

Appearances are deceiving. I am a Constitutional originalist.  Conservatives assert that they are also, and some make good money and bigger notoriety for themselves capitalizing on that perspective.  Senator Rand Paul is one of those whom I too often disagree with.  Recently on Facebook this meme was posted.

Rand Paul

I believe just the opposite is true.  Yes, I am well aware of various statements by Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, et al.  On the surface their comments appear to contradict what I am saying and to verify Senator Paul’s assertion (if the meme is accurate and within context).  Yet, that is not the case at all.

The intention of the founders was to actually establish a stronger central government.  They, especially Madison, recognized the central government weakness within the Articles of Confederation.  That weakness nearly undermined the Declaration of Independence, setting the colonies backs into servitude to Great Britain and like France also.

The Founders were studious men well versed in the theories of John Locke, even though the foundation for their expose in good government came most strongly from The Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu (a lengthy but intriguing read).  Their intention was to establish a stronger government which would be responsive to the populace.

The ultimate design of the US Constitution, which came from these very learned men, was not whimsical.  Virtually, every word was scrutinized and often debated.  The founders were, in a word, conscientious.

They recognized that both individuals and the masses were subject to personal design and “flamboyant” flattering words…respectfully.

Their object was NOT to create a government which the people would mistrust, but rather a government in which the people could more definitely trust.

That trust had to be based in self-trust by the states and the people respectively.  In previous societies, the government was envisioned as a window through which people gazed on potentates with awe and deference.  Under the Constitution, the government was viewed as a mirror reflecting the will and rights of the people.  In short, the new government was in a very real sense the states and the people.

To suggest that the founders advocated for mistrust of government is naive at best.  They were all far too wise to consider government as a separate entity on the far side of a shatterproof window.  The government was a constitution of people selected from the states and the populace.

A statement that the founders (inclusive of a bulk of the population) created a government to be mistrusted would have implied that the premise of independence ought to have been abandoned and subservience to eternal forces was preferable.  Obviously, that was not the case before, nor the result of, the Constitutional Convention.

We are and have been since well before either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution a people under self-governance.  Occasionally we elect untrustworthy men and/or women, who misuse the entitlement which we willingly give them.  Of those elected officials, and them alone, we should mistrust.  Further, it is incumbent upon every citizen to stand in the breach when it is discovered.  It is our duty to correct and repair a defect in government rather than to flippantly suggest that government as a whole should be mistrusted.

Being faint of heart has never been an attribute of the US citizen.  Rhetoric is a folly of ambitious people.  We ought not to be deceived by it … in the name of a cliché label.

That Is The Way I See It.

Why Not Neither

When, in the course of political events, one chooses to refrain from embracing any candidate, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the rejection. (paraphrased, with intent).

Orrin Hatch, United States Senator from Utah, finally decided it was time to hang up his Republican Jersey and head home to the Pennsylvania pastures which had been transplanted to Utah.  Of course being in the US senate has always been his choice since following his first election to the office.  The hounds of hopefulness always howled at his longer tenure, but neither Republican nor Democrats ever actually had the chance of a dying duck in a hailstorm of winning the seat from him.

Now, in 2018 Orrin has decided to put his political cleats in his locker for the last time.  And, what a running game he had.  Senator Hatch dominated the political field as few others in history ever had.  The super bowl of Utah politics will be named after him.  Every newcomer to the ballot may win the Lombardi Trophy (aka Hatch Trophy) at the game’s end, but the name will forever be associated with Orrin Hatch.

In 2018 multiple candidates are arising to claim the role as Republican gladiators.  Yet, there is one financial gladiator and many humble Christians for the crowds to scream for…until the lions finish lunch.

The gladiator of big finance and inevitability for billboard notices is none other than “also ran” Mitt Romney.  Though seen as a wealthy kitty cat slayer, surrounded by “also would-be” cheerleaders, dressed like a cheap pontiff, Romney does not offer much in the way of statesmanship nor a consistent reputation.  His claim to fame in Utah is that he held the cloak of other Christians while they entered the games to get stoned and devoured by lions.

In the other corners stands the hopefuls, a good intentioned Walter Mittys sweating profusely into their towels before the introductions have even been made.  Whereas as the gladiator is well-known, these lightweights have spent far too much time shadow boxing.

Now, I return to my opening stolen paraphrase.  I wish to explain why I reject Rambling Romney, heir apparent for the adulating Gods of proper Utah politics.

As Jefferson , the great anti-federalist suggested, long strings of abuses and miscreant governments deserve to have their chains severed from the necks of the people who place them in power.  Romney fails to offer the hammer, chisel and anvil needed to make that break.

The citizenry of this nation, and more importantly her states, have become so accustomed to being chained to the oars of the central government ship-of-state most cannot even recognize that nearly every discussion begins and ends with how to be managed nationalized power.  The founders wrote the great compromise into the Constitution which inevitably led to our international prominence.  Initially this nation, until the time that the devil (Woodrow Wilson) was elected to the presidency, was a fleet of powerful ships.  Today, because of a lack of consciousness about what we were intended to be, each state is nothing more than a rowboat with a flock of squawking seagulls as lackies at the helm.

As suggested, all things are spoken of in terms of how the states and people must comply with the federal government.  Yes, people like Mitt Romney are blatantly advocates of the Wilsonian progressive view that people are inferior to the wise, wealthy, and usually wicked.  The answer from his ilk is all things ought to be centralized.

Yet, many of his opponents, shouting from the rooftops in a hopeless harangue are no less guilty.  They may scream about over burdensome federal regulation but they also offers no specific alternatives to the rambling Romney.  With exceptions.

Most of the candidates simply scamper around the skirt tails of platitudes with nothing of substance to offer the electorate.  Why, because we have been trained as candidates that people won’t vote for a candidate that actually stands for something definable (until President Donald Trump).  All that we see is a posse of deputies riding hard into the sunset of another mindless monologue of “we need new ideas,” or “we need fresh leadership.”  Yet, few offer anything beyond cryptic casual caustic comments which can never be held against them on the stage of true leadership.

What is needed, and hoped for by this author, is a candidate willing to state clearly what he will champion…besides grand theories which hold little if any substance.

Where is the man who will say, AND MEAN,

  1. “I will devote myself to eliminating the entire Internal Revenue Service and push back such schemes to the states?”  Where is he or she?
  2. Where is the man or woman who will say “If the ninth and tenth circuit courts perpetually fail to bring rulings in sync with the US Constitution, I will advocate for a closure of that court.  There is no need for the expense of a court which cannot or will not comply with the Supreme Court.”
  3. Where is the man that will say, “The worst operated digital performance of this age exists within our government.  I will dedicate myself to insisting of reforming all necessary agencies to provide 98% flawless digital communication twenty-four (24) hours seven days per week.”

I could not give one whit for a perfectly funded candidates that is willing to boldly declare how he will stand up for the little guy and principles, when in United States of America there are NO “little guys,” and, when principles are without content and follow-through.  Simple-minded empty sales pitches by flamboyant and well-financed candidates serve no value.

I would sooner have a badger babysit a field mouse than have a candidate that places party before lively action toward actually minimizing the size and influence of government over the lives of individuals.

In light of these comments I see only three candidates worthy of election; Sam Parker, Larry Meyers, and Tim Jimenez.  Mitt Romney does not even make the middle tier.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary … men should rise up in opposition to the suppression of that government which holds them bound.  That necessity exists now, as never before since the Declaration of Independence.

That Is The Way I See It.

The LDS Church Stance

I am not a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor do I have any authority to represent the LDS Church.  I reiterate, these are my interpretations of public and authoritative documents.  I should not be cited as having any form of legitimacy.  These are my opinions alone.  Yet, my views ought not to be summarily dismissed either.

A friend, associate, of mine Kate Hefley Dalley, is a an afternoon talk show host on a local radio station with a broader audience via the internet.  Not only does she spend her weekday afternoons commenting on public issues she also posts her personal views on Facebook.

Among her personal views she posted the following: “When the Bundy’s were up against FED snipers trained on them and their children and the unconstitutional treatment by the Feds, Elected Officials both Federal and State failed to help them, their own constituents. Michele Fiore was the only one I can think of that listened to them and stuck her neck out for them. That means a whole lot of Elected Officials, Senators, Congressmen, even Sheriffs and Mayors quickly threw this family and LaVoy Finicum under the bus.”   That is not her statement in its entirety but it portrays her sentiment, I believe.  Kate is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referenced as the LDS Church.

Following her post several people jump on their own bandwagon of criticism of the LDS Church because of its stance regarding the imprisonment of several members and friends of the Bundy family over a dispute with the Bureau of Land Management.  In addition to that dispute charges were also set against the Bundy family members for participation in the occupation of a wildlife reserve in Oregon, which resulted in the shooting death of Lavoy Finicum by local officials operating in conjunction with federal law enforcement agencies.  At that time the LDS Church issued a statement encouraging people to refrain from the conflict.

Consequent to people’s reaction to Kate’s post, by bring criticism of the LDS Church’s otherwise non-position regarding the conflict, in Nevada, she posted a clarification that her comment (cited above) related to elected officials and not LDS Church officials. “I’m not addressing the Church in this post. I’m talking exclusively about the Elected Officials that we elect to SERVE us. Will they really serve us if we were treated as the Bundy’s were. Let’s stay on topic. Please!”  Yet, the people otherwise critical of the Church’s role continued their commentaries of complaint.  It is then that I felt compelled to comment on the matter specific to the LDS Church’s role.  Rather than a lengthy Facebook comment I chose to use this blog.

Again, one more time, I reiterate these are my singular viewpoints and are shared by others only coincidentally.

The role of elected officials and the media are substantively different from the role of religious leaders and organizations, in most cases.  At least I hope so.  In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints its mission is to “Bring Souls Unto Christ.”  Over the years the LDS Church has reiterated that it takes political positions only as they related specifically to that mission.  It is important to note that the LDS Church does not comment on every political issue, nor should they regardless of the strength of their influence.  As President Abraham Lincoln said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Likewise, I hold the perspective that a Church divided in its mission cannot long stand.  When the winds come it shall fall and great shall be the fall of it.

When the LDS Church encouraged membership to refrain from participation in the Oregon incident I hold the opinion that it did so to encourage peace and a well-ordered society.  The LDS Church leadership, with the perspective of thousands of hours on interactions with violence across the globe and seeking to fulfill its mission none-the-less, may have foreseen highly potential outcomes.  In fact, the outcome was in fact the death of a former LDS Bishop, Lavoy Finicum, whom chose to participate and even taken on the role of spokesman.

As a personal side note I was somewhat well acquainted with his brother, whom was serving as an LDS Bishop, and we discussed Lavoy at some length.  Correspondingly, I worked very closely with the father-in-law of one of Lavoy’s sons and had similar and even more in-depth conversations.  I lived next door to the home of one of the main parties involved in Lavoy’s shooting.  A week before Lavoy’s death I interviewed him for over an hour.  Although frustrating that I will not go into detail about those conversation because they are private and sacred I believe I am qualified to understand better than some the subtle roles played by various people.

The LDS Church maintained its position consistent with its mission, as directed by its ordained leaders.  Some people may disagree with that because of their own designs and desires.  They will likely continue with criticism.  Yet, they do not, like myself, guide the reigns.

With respect to those whom would criticize the LDS Church too harshly let me draw upon an easily overlooked or manipulated portion of LDS Church Scripture, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9)

That verse may be easily manipulated to defend or justify criticism or use of religious influence.  Some will attempt to twist its obvious meaning with personal nuance.  However rational minds will recognize that between the mission and this scripture of the LDS Church the intent is clear.  The LDS Church focused upon bringing souls unto Christ and commenting or unduly influencing publicly elected leaders, for all religious societies, clearly would have been inappropriate.

Further, “We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:11)

That does not suggest that the Church itself should be engaged such activities, but rather that men are justified in such behaviors.  Expectation for the LDS Church to step into the breach of every social issue is foolhardy.  However, in keeping with their mission it is wise to counsel people, through means of a broader perspective, to use wisdom to keep themselves from harm’s way both temporally and eternally.

Further, willfully overlooked by some is that this verse does not justify insurrection.  It justifies just self-protection where governments cannot supply immediate and satisfactory means against criminal elements.  It is popular among some to suggest that governments themselves are criminal elements.  Yet, they are not.  They are duly elected and appointed by the established means,  If we are dissatisfied with the conduct of those elected we have a right, even an obligation to justly seek to replace them.  Again, not by insurrection but by legitimate means.

ps- Initially, I held the stance as many others.  I questioned why the LDS Church would refrain from raising a voice of warning against obvious and apparent government unjust intrusion.  However, accepting that the Church leaders had a broader and more experienced perspective than myself I was able, after some time, to recognize the deeper and longer merit of their course.

That is The Way I See It.

A Change in the Focus

Following is a commentary which I wrote on January 24, 2012.  It is not about CMV for a change, but rather about Mitt Romney.  Slight format changes have been made but the content remains the same.

This is in reference to Mitt’s conduct during the 2012 primaries and debates.  If you have paid any attention you will see that he has not change but only gotten more entrenched in his hateful rhetoric.

Mitt Romney is simply another Barack Obama.

Throughout the debates when a moderator asks a question Mitt uses a response similar to “That’s not the question I want to answer, so here is the right question”.  When an opponent raises an issue and asks him to actually respond (aka Rick Santorum in South Carolina) Mitt rudely responds with “I’ll answer the way I want to answer”.

Repeatedly throughout this election year we have seen Romney respond to people with the equivalent of “Shut up, it my turn to speak”.  Maybe a Dale Carnegie class is in his future plans.

Mitt’s speeches are filled with grand platitudes, but helplessly short on substance.  He is wonderful at blaming Obama, but if one listens closely to his comments he does not back-fill his criticism with what he will actually attempt to do…other than that he will hang Churchill’s picture back up in the White House.  I count that as slightly short on substance, symbolic as it may be.

He rants and carries on about not releasing his tax information.  Personally I don’t care.  However, this article is about how Romney is like Obama.  The president has refused again and again to release personal information.  Mitt is acting just like Barack.  The attitudes are the same; “I am better than the people that I ask to allow me to govern”.

Mitt Romney is fundamentally an arrogant candidate.  Pundits keep asking the question as to why Romney does not resonate with the voters.  The answer is rather simple.  Mitt Romney, just like Barack Obama, believes he is better than the rest of us.  He weakly attempts to convince us that he is one of us with his millions in annual income.  Then he speaks down to us, as opposed to Newt Gingrich that actually does resonate with the people.  Romney was Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and believes that means the people are “commoners” below his majesty.  We sense that and rightfully bristle.

An example of his arrogance is how he and his wrecking crew, led by the always hateful Karl Rove, slashed out at Newt Gingrich in Iowa.  Their ads were particularly hateful and misleading.  Then when the tables are turned and Newt demands answers from Romney what did we hear?  “I am shocked that Republicans would attack fellow Republicans (ME) like that.   I expect that from the Democrats, but not Republicans.”  Mitt Romney genuinely believes he is above criticism.  He believes that he is better than “we the people”.  Then last night in the Florida debate he repeated the same disgustingly shallow behavior.  He opened his comments by refusing to answer the question asked of him, and went on one of the most vicious personal attacks on Gingrich that has ever been displayed.   Then at the end of the debate decried how others doing the same thing toward him was somehow out of bounds.  There was man so consumed in himself that he didn’t even perceive what he was doing.  Some would say he “Obamaed” himself. His whole demeanor is that he can be distasteful, but others should respond by saying “Gee Mitt, thanks for that barbed stick up our collective butts”.

Let’s look at another example of Mitt’s mentality of meanness.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,”   Really?  Seriously, Mitt?  Then you are one of the few managers in the world that have that mentality.  Nobody likes being fired, and nobody except the mean-spirited like firing people, even non-performers.   I use another phrase by him last evening.  When talking about Fidel Castro, Mitt was gleefully sarcastic about how he would happy when the man dies.  I am not defending Fidel Castro, however the American people that I know don’t wish that despicable of a comment on others who have done them no harm (Oh, wait.  Maybe Castro was able to dip into Romney’s millions in the Cayman Isles, but overlooked the millions all the rest of us keep in Swiss banks).  Mitt Romney is out of touch with the average descent American.

Republicans are fond of pointing fingers at the unemployed minorities in inner cities and suggesting that they have an entitlement mentality and think the government should bail them out.  The reality is that it is people like Mitt Romney that have the entitlement mentality.  He believes that America owes him the presidency because he is efficient at killing jobs, because he came from a rich daddy, because he has others to do the actual dirty work for him such as lying about fellow Republicans.

I have a challenge for Mitt Romney.  Br. Mitt, why don’t you respond to the questions America wants answered, rather than suggesting we should worship you…just because you are you?  We have had almost four years of an arrogant president.  You look and sound just like him.

CMV: The Consummate Failure

The Count My Vote (CMV) initiative is proven historically to be the consummate failure of prudent government.

 

CMV seeks to establish direct primaries as the only, if not dominate, mean of selecting candidates for public office.  Of course the proponents argue the merits of how everyone, not just a few delegates choose their candidates in and open election.  They refuse to share actual historic information which demonstrates the inborn flaws.

In Early American (United States) politics term limits were self-imposed by most candidates.  Even those in office mistrusted their own instincts to eventually be influence by the allure of unbridled power.  Several originalist treatises, constitutions and compacts demonstrated disdain for a lack of rotation in public office.

It is often suggested that Abraham Lincoln’s early career was fraught with defeats and disappointment.  At some level that may be true.  But his own words suggest otherwise. Said he, “to enter myself (sic. for another term in the House of Representatives) as a competitor of another, or to authorize anyone so to enter me, is what my word and honor forbid”.

Yet, within a decade after the Civil War and obviously Lincoln’s death careerism or “homesteading” in political office was taking root.  By the 20th century long-term office holding and career incumbency was in full swing  rivaling the times of roaring “dance until you drop” era.

What has all that to do with CMV, you may well be asking?  Let me expand.

Not long after men began coveting career office holding came the infusion of Direct Primaries to substantially enlarge their “political capital” of life long incumbency.

The agenda of Count My Vote is to drive a nail into the coffin of the Caucus System. Which will perpetuate life long terms of wallowing at the trough of political slop.

History has taught us by sad experience it is the nature and disposition of just about all people who once at the levers of power will advocate for any form of public nuance to give themselves advantage to continue riding the gravy train.

Our forefather knew the ancient history of these truths and culturally rejected those tendencies through conduct and written constitutions.  Our consummate failure is that we refuse to take the time to learn from those men whom were learned.  In exchange we rely on the loud voice of wealth shouting down the warnings of the day…simply for their sole advantage.

Reject these modern megaphones and listen first to the voices of the wise men of the past who chose wisdom over political expedience. Said George Mason, of the Continental Congress, “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation”.  I believe he would have added that limiting the power of multiple layered vetting is equally essential, which is what the Utah Caucus system provides.

That Is The Way I See It.

CMV -Another Look

As I watched the deception about CMV (Count My Vote) unravel a couple of years ago and the legislature finally cave to the proponent’s threats I was fascinated by the shallowness of the reasoning.  The Utah State Legislature ultimately came up with a ludicrous compromise known as SB-54.

Now, the CMV folks, despite their assurances to cease the initiative effort have reneged and are pursuing an even worse version of Count My Vote (Yes, it can get much much worse, and they are intending to make it so) initiative.

In short CMV accomplishes one thing, despite their tales of public appeal.  Count My Vote seeks to open a pathway for wealthy candidates to buy access to the ballot rather than going through a legitimate evaluation process currently working with Utah’s political parties.

CMV, in more detail, is purported to allow candidates to simply declare what party they affiliate with and then buy access to a ballot position without being vetted by those who actually participate in the nominating process.

As in most cases with initiatives in Utah, once a group has established that they wish to change state law through a signature route, the State Legislature will step in and create some convoluted version of compromise. 

It is important to recognize that the State Legislature long ago established a law that in essence says “Which way did the public go…so we can get in front of them and lead them.”  In less caustic terms that means the State Legislature has reserved to right to override and prevent initiatives in Utah from taking effect simply by passing a related law.

Therefore my question come to this, how far will the CMV advocates and State Legislators go to take control of private organizations?  I raise the question because political parties in Utah are private organizations and should be allowed to establish their own operating procedures.

Consider this scenario.  If the State Legislature or CMV continues down this road of needless regulation  how far will they go?  Conceivably and realistically they could also mandate how party officials are selected.  What????  Are you Crazy, Bill?

Under the current Caucus/Convention system delegates select candidates for office or a primary during a legitimately held and open convention.  SB-54 has undermined that process.

Now, let’s look just a bit further down the road.  The party leadership, presidential electors, national committee members, et al are selected by the convention delegates elected in the neighborhood caucuses. With the direction that the CMV folks and State Legislature is moving it is conceivable and reasonable to believe that a consequence of this effort to appease wealthy candidates would leave party leadership in the hands of just a few well placed “I bought your Vote” incumbents.  If delegates are too unwise to properly select candidates for office these same people would advocate that party leadership should also be removed from the hands of delegates.

Here is my concern with that scenario.  In the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton had full control of the Democrat Party leadership.  Consequently, other viable candidates were systematically ousted or prevented from fair participation in their primary process.  The tales of the deceit are now legendary.  

Another example was the Mitt Romney campaign when he ran against President Obama.  His campaign and PACS systematically coordinated and used their influence and monetary resources to undermine Rick Santorum in New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich in S. Carolina/Florida.

As we look to the future in Utah these kinds of insider controls of private partisan organizations must be guarded against by preserving the best means of protection through the Caucus/Convention system.  In 2018 it is purported that one of the main supporters of backroom and public manipulation will be seeking the Republican nomination for the US Senate.  If the Caucus/Convention system is undermined further Utah will lose its ability to field well-informed and honorable candidates.
That Is How I See It

More on The Disaster Called “Count My Vote.”

I write regularly about the conspiracy being perpetrated upon the State of Utah by high roller gamblers, from out-of-state, pushing the Count My Vote Initiative.  I have highlighted the very obvious flaws with the corruption which insider rich boys and girls are trying to shove down the voters throats.

Today I address another relevant point; illegal voting.  One of the protections which the Caucus/Convention system  provides is a controlled election which keeps illegal voting at a minimum.

We have seen repeatedly where some states that rely exclusively on primaries then have legitimate claims of substantive illegal voting.  Most recently we have the case where significant and reliable stories of illegal voting took place in the Alabama Special Election for an US Senate Seat.  The stories range from vast numbers of voting precincts actually having more votes tallied that registered voters to verified stories of voters being bused in from adjacent states.

What makes this relevant is that there is no reliability among voters of the veracity of the voter turn-out or casting of ballots.  It will not be sorted out for months, if not years.

The cause of this phenomena is the wide open primary and runoff process used there.  It is in some fashion similar to the initiative being promoted by the Count My Vote (CMV) folks.  CMV is seeking to eliminate a vetting system that verifies the legitimacy of each delegate voting in a convention setting.  All political parties in Utah use rational processes to verify legitimacy of delegates in their conventions.  No such assurances exist with the system promoted by the CMV advocates.

For example, in Utah County just this year, thousands of ballots were sent out to non-Republican voters allowing them to vote in the Republican primary.  Had the Utah State Legislature left well-enough alone rather than jamming SB-54 down the throats of Utah voters the flaw would have been prevented.

What we shall see in future elections, if the next CMV initiative is successful, will be constant challenges to the veracity of election turn-outs and the casting of votes.  The confidence of the voters will be in constant doubt, especially when an under qualified  wealthy candidate that demonstrates their lack of understanding or interest in the views of the Utah electorate, is able to buy a position on the ballot.

Such wealthy candidates can (and there is no reason to believe they will not) buy transient voters to cast ballots in their favor, if a race appears close.

Now, the natural tendency will be to say “That could never happen in Utah.  We are too honorable for that.”  Well, folks, that is precisely what happened this year.

Nothing good for Utah will come from the CMV initiative, but bad will certainly raise its ugly head once again….over, and over again.

That Is The Way I See It!

Let’s Examine the FACTS About the CMV Claims

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli’s works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.”

That pithy quote is attributed to a variety of prominent folks through history;  Most frequently has been Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain.  It doesn’t make much difference, I suppose, who coined the phrase first.  It is there and rather accurate.

“Lies” are used to hide the truth about something someone said or did.
“Damn lies” are used to totally refute something which someone has claimed about a person.
“Statistics” are used to obfuscate the truth when mild or firm denial is just not sellable.

The Count My Vote Website, used to support an initiative to alter the form of nominating candidates for office in Utah, asserts various statistics that deserve further analysis than the site authors apparently wish for us to be aware of.  Let’s examine those “statistics.”

The CMV website asserts statistics to support their claim that the current caucus/convention system cheats the voters of Utah out of fair representation.

  1. Flaw # 1-They use data that is passed relevancy, but is statistically misleading. ”  In 1960, over 78% of Utah voters went to the polls. In 2012, only 51% of Utah’s voting age population cast a ballot, ranking Utah 39th nationally in voter turnout.”  Wow, that is just terrible…a twenty-one percent drop in voting.  The rape and pillaging has begun and is unstoppable, maybe.
    1. Response to their First Flaw – Note that they statistically use old data that is now 20 years out of date.  The problem becomes apparent when compared to current data.
      1. The old data they use is a fraudulent representation of subtlety.  They are comparing voters that went to the polls with the overall voting age population.  Nothing in their arguments suggests that the CMV initiative will increase voter registration, NOTHING.  The comparison is a deception, likely orchestrated by a professional advertising firm.
      2. CMV then fails to articulate the sources and application of their data.  Is it comparing state races, congressional district races, presidential races.  That is a well disguised anomaly likely intended to convey a false flag message.
      3. In current data (2000-2016) national data centers (United States Census Bureau and the Clerk of the House of Representatives) show much different information.  First, presidential election years, along with congressional elections years, the voter turnout for the past decade and a half have remained statically insignificant in terms of turn out.  The only exceptions are during the Obama elections which both had lower percentage turnouts.  That should be surprising given the LDS association of Mitt Romney.  All other years remain statistically insignificant in changes.
      4. Next is the matter of actual voter turnout compared to statistical percentages.  Between the years 2000 and 2016 (last presidential election year) the actual number of voters in the presidential, senatorial and Congressional district races has seen substantial increases.
        1. Presidential races = 360,563 additional voters (46.8% increase).
        2. Senatorial races =  345,879 additional voters (44.9% increase).
        3. Congressional races = 355,390 additional voters (46.84% increase).
  2. Flaw # 2 – The CMV site asserts opinion as though it were fact.  They offer no substantiation for those claims.  “Utah’s caucus system is least accountable to Utah voters
    • Utah’s elected leaders are more concerned with making policies supported by party delegates than policies supported by Utah voters.
    • Party delegates and activists have different priorities than voters and do not represent the views of average Utahns.
    • Utah’s system gives the most power and influence to those with the most extreme views.”

    1. Response to their Second Flaw –

    There is no evidence that elected officials show additional concern for delegate views than for primary or general election views.  A much longer commentary could actually demonstrate that in a multitude of scenarios state and congressional elected officials actions are contrary to those of delegates.

    Again, there is no substantiation for the assertion that delegates and activists have different priorities than the voters.  But the flaw goes further; there is also NO substantive evidence that elected officials, absent the caucus system, are any more responsive to the voters.  What is relevant to recognize is that those who run for office usually have an issue of great concern to them, regardless of how they achieve being on the general election ballot.  Of course they will centralize their actions around those issues.  There is a perfect case in point to verify that assessment.

    The assertion of the current system giving power to those with the most extreme views should be reversed 180 degrees.  It is the Count My Vote initiative that is the perfect example.  It is being pushed by special interests ahead of many other equally salient issues.  The state legislature in the passage of SB-54 demonstrated that they in fact were not adversely effected by delegates but were actually responsive to the special interests of CMV advocates, to the detriment of the citizens of Utah.

    That is The Way I See It.

Republican Vs. CMV

Let me attempt to confuse things even more. There is a battle going on within the Republican Party.  It extends from national to state to local partisanship.  I speak to the intra-party squabble in Utah.

It appears there is a contest of wills being exerted between the Utah Republican Party Chairman, Rob Anderson, and a sizable portion of the State Central Committee.  To simplify the subject there is an underlying issue referred to as Count My Vote.

On one side, long time party activists seek to maintain what is known as Caucus/Convention system for nominating candidates to run under the official banner of the Republican Party.  Contrary to that system is the initiative known as “Count My Vote”(CMV).  Under CMV any candidate could declare themselves a member and representative of a political party.  They would then have an opportunity to sidestep the   obligations of Caucus/Convention system and by acquiring sufficient petition signatures to have their name placed on the ballot…as an officially sanctioned representative of the party.

Under threat of an initiative process the CMV advocates persuaded the State Legislature to adopt a state law creating a blend of the two concepts.  The Utah Republican Party, in conjunction with other third parties in the state, sought to de-legitimatize the new law as inconsistent with the state constitution, via a lawsuit.

That is about as succinct as I can make the scenario.

The Utah Republican Party elected a chairman who campaigned for the position as a protector of the traditional Caucus/Convention system.  Since that time his actions have been called into question by several member of the State Central Committee of the Republican Party.  The reason for being called into question is the apparent shift in the chairman’s position on the entire question of opposition to the CMV effort.  They claim he has become an advocate of a system which will destroy the Republican Party of Utah.

The latest round of debates (overlooking recent intra-party knock-down drag-out fights) centers around the rights of the chairman to nullify the calling of State Central Committee meeting.

Here are the facts:

  1.  Despite claims by any party official the state central committee, under its (Republican Party) own Constitution and Bylaws, is chaired by the Party Chairman.
  2. In the absence of the Chair the Party Vice chairperson then conducts the meeting.  That is Very Clear, and to an extent substantiates the Chairman’s Claim of certain rights of operations.
    1. The Constitution and Bylaws of the Party DO NOT address directly the process to be followed if the Chair and the Vice Chair are absent.
  3. However, the Republican Party Constitution, Article XIII state “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party…”
    1. The question then becomes what is the meaning of the word (No, I am not pulling a Bill Clinton here) “current?”  Does it mean current , as in the time of adoption, or “present” as in right now?  Although that question could bear relevance fortunately for this matter it does not.
    2. According to multiple dictionaries the confusion between current and present is made clear.  Current means at the time of, whereas present means right now.  Perhaps the adoption of the Repubican Party Constitution did not take the nuance of those words into account.  I am.
    3. The current, date of the latest version of the Republican Party Constitution was May 20, 2017.  That suggests that the present version of the Constitution prevails, since 5/20/2017.
  4. What makes that particularly relevant is that the current and present edition of Robert’s Rules of Order state the same thing.
    1. In the absence of a chair and a vice chair the Secretary shall conduct the opening of the meeting.
    2. The legitimate participants then select a Chair Pro Tem to conduct all subsequent matters of the meeting.  Upon the presence of the permanent chairman or vice chairman the Pro Tem position is immediately vacated.

Nothing in the existing Republican Party Constitution or Bylaws, which are also subject to state statute, suggest that the absence of the chair or vice chair of any group, having adopted the current/present Robert’s Rules of Order imply that an officially called meeting of the State Central Committee would be illegal or inappropriate.

With respect to the Chairman’s right to cancel a State Central Committee nothing in the Party Constitution, Bylaws, statute, or Robert’s Rules of Order defend that presumption.  He may disagree with the meeting and reject, personally, all aspects of it’s proceeding.  Yet, his only legitimate course of action is to argue against it such proceeding.  He cannot even legitimately refuse to take action dirceted by the State Central Committee, without resignation.

Absent his resignation as chairman by a 60% vote of the State Central Committee, under the Constitution and Bylaws as presently written, that body may remove him from his role.

That Is The Way I See It.

We Need Moore Accountability

Did you like my play on words in the title of this article?  I thought it was clever.

What is not clever is the unruliness of the United States Central Government.  I seriously hope people will take the following suggestions seriously.

Dozens upon dozens of men have been recently crucified on the cross of intolerance and supposition of sexual misconduct.  Some of them members of the United States Congress or running for public office.  [Please read my previous post regarding this phenomena].

I do not opine on the veracity of any of the accusations nor their subsequent denials.  What I do opine on is the general acceptance which we give to salacious gossip being promoted by ne’er-do-well media talking heads and members of Congress.

The onslaught of accusations will only accelerate now that success has been garnered via the Judge Roy Moore defeat in Alabama.  We SHALL see every Tom, Dick, and Harry being accused for the exaggerated effort to destroy them politically.  It Can Be Stopped, at least in the political realm.  Here is how.

Confront it.  Confront it, not for the sake of proving the accusations are false or true.  Confront it to seek greater understanding beyond presumption of guilt for pandering purposes.

A) For every accusation leveled against an incumbent or  candidate for Congress the respective body of Congress, meaning the House and the senate should exercise their Article I-5 rights as a central government body; “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; “

Character destruction and election manipulation are among the worse behaviors of a people free to select their own governors.  Surprisingly (little known to the masses), the founders designed the Constitution with it abundant and in some cases redundant phraseology to prevent, best as they could, the mass of people from being momentarily persuaded to evil be designing men of a corrupt nature.  Yes, I know that some ultra conservatives who have read the US Constitution once will argue with me, but they would be simply incorrect.

B) Under Article 1-5 every accusation leveled toward an incumbent, Republican or Democrat, should be subject to true evaluation by the House or Senate.  Anyone refusing to provide testimony for any, and I mean ANY, reason to participate in such investigation should immediately be discounted and rejected as salacious.

C) Until such time as the respective house of Congress has made a determination of veracity, under A1-5, no elected official should be seated.

D) Further, though not articulated in the US Constitution, any member of Congress expressing views regarding the election of members outside of their respective states should be directly and publicly censured.  Further, they ought to be stripped of any role which they have in the respective governing body.  Why?

Because of the very nature of Article 1-5!  While they have the constitutional right to determine fitness for office of any member or candidate they ought not to be making prejudicial comments regarding such individuals.  Those that obstruct that intended unbiased approach should be directly and publicly censured to the extent of removal from office for non-corrective behavior.

Yes, I am fully aware of the restriction on rights which this places on incumbents.  But incumbency places a much heavier burden of propriety upon elected officials than upon others, or at least it should.  Their judgments ought to be without bias and public influencing.

E) Yes, there are a multitude of “what ifs” which would be used by psychologically weak members of Congress.  However, the premise of this proposal is to stimulate rational behavior rather than the gut reactions which govern our entire nation at this time.

F) Finally, just as with impeachment of the president, this provision of the Constitution was included because the founders recognized that the designs of evil men would exist in the hearts of members of Congress as readily as in the heart of the President.  Those founder recognized that wickedness was not reserved only to those in the executive branch but would also prevail, if unchecked, among their very own members.  Impeachment was such a viable option to the founders it was not even discussed at length.  They KNEW that impeach was an essential element of good government.

Consequently, like impeachment, such hearing and investigations would not be deemed judicial rulings, just fitness for office.  They would be assessments of legislative aptitude.  Any case which warranted judicial action would then follow judicial proceedings.

Today there is a multitude of assertions of inappropriate behaviors by members of Congress.  Each should be dealt with as described above, regardless of rumors or partisan affiliation.  Just as the current Majority Leader of the Senate has abused his power and authority in the Judge Roy Moore election other members, including himself, have used their position to inappropriately hold Al Franken accountable for unproven allegations.  Neither Moore nor Franken were given the respect warranted, but rather were crucified upon a cross of intolerance by lesser men who would be their colleagues.

Please note, I have views and opinions regarding both Franken and Moore which are substantially different from what I have expressed herein.  However, fairness and reason must prevail and must be insisted upon by the population…else we are destined for the oblivion of a failed governing system, as predicted by the English so long ago.

That Is The Way I See It.

Getting Back to Basics

The election of Jones over Moore in Alabama, along with commentaries by some friends on Facebook, has me thinking about where we are as a society.  Let me try to be succinct.

First and foremost the question needs to be raised, “Do you still agree with the US Constitution?”  Be honest, do you?

Here is the thing.  In order to agree with the US Constitution you MUST first understand it.  I contend that most of our society (population of the USA) do not even understand it.  Yes, there are many that bark at the shadows of the Constitution, but few that actually internalize its full meaning.  Unfortunately, for this writing, that is not my main subject.

The US Constitution displays a new political philosophy for the time of its writing.  In short it asserted that the rights of self-government came from those that were to be governed and not from the “divine right of kings.”

What is self-government?  It is the condition under which each and every man may freely choose to conduct himself in a manner of his desires, without undue social restraint or gift.  Note, restraint and gifts, under the US Constitution, come in equal portions.  It comes down to that eternal premise that everyone is entitled to be agents unto themselves and none other.  They choose the course they will follow and correspondingly reap the benefits or losses.

The American society, long before the Constitution was written, embraced that concept of self governance.  The Pilgrims first instituted a limited sense of self governance.  But, with the arrival of Roger Williams it began to take full root…culminating in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.  The Articles of Confederation were the first articulation of self-governing liberty.  They were quickly followed by the US Constitution.

So, we come back to the question (because I don’t want it forgotten) do we still agree with the premise of the US Constitution?  The answer makes significant differences in the lives of people and The People.

I use the phrase “bootstrap democracy” to articulate agreement with the original Constitution.  Every man from whatever entitlement or lack thereof he comes from has the right and ability to grab his own bootstraps and pull himself up in society.  His level of rise, and to stay risen, depends entirely on himself.  That is what is written in the Constitution.

Contrary to that is the premise that every man is somehow entitled to gifts from the masses of society.  Those gifts may be society, through government, restricting the ability of some to rise or plundering some to give others a lift-up.  It is really that simple.

In every election from the most local to the largest national prominence the first and foremost question we ought to be asking ourselves is whether the basis for a man seeking a public role will advance bootstrap democracy or inequity of resources.

So, one more time the question is which do you favor?  Do you embrace a society which government dictates the gifts delivered, OR, do you embrace a society wherein each man rises or falls on his own merits?

We may not like being “called out” for our stance because of some embarrassment but the question always remains the same and each of us determines how we shall answer it.  Yet, honesty is the best response, at least to ourselves.

If you reject the premise of the US Constitution for whatever reason, that very Constitution as originally written entitles you to do so.  Equally if you are willing to embrace the full concept of that Constitution you also have that entitlement.

Now, for the kicker.  If you reject the basis of the US Constitution you, in a good moral sense should loudly and boldly assert that it is an antique concept.  Don’t hide behind transient issues like taxes, budgets, moral conundrums, and foreign wars.  Just stand up boldly and declare that you reject our Constitution.

Yet, on the opposite hand, if you honestly still embrace the concepts embedded in the US Constitution you certainly ought to come to their defense…even when doing so may temporarily injure yourself.  Why?  Because the concepts of the Constitution guarantee nothing in the short-term.  Yet, in the long-term they are far more beneficial than all the government mandated gifts of society.

“Chose ye this day whom you will serve.”  The choice is between the Philistines and the Freemen.

That is the Way I See It.

 

My recent observations at the US Postal Service

I stopped at the post office on Friday, grumpy and complaining because I wasn’t feeling well.  That’s important for two reasons.  First, I was sick so you should give me sympathy.  Second, when we are sick we tend to notice irritants more.

Let me describe what transpired.

Entering the parking lot there were multiple signs ordering me which way to drive.  To put an emphasis on that control over me the government had built a barrier to actually prevent me from going where they said not to drive.  Two more signs gave instructions on speed and parking.

The handicapped space was marked handicapped with a threatening message that violators would be towed and fine (of course some federal statute was cited as authority).

Entering the building there were certain doors labeled as entrance and exits.  The exit doors had no handles on them, presumably to prevent ingrates from misusing the doors.  But, to emphasize once again that the feds meant business the building was designed so that the doors could not be opened inward.  By heck they were not going to risk some moral reprobate going IN the OUT door.

Now, that was not the end of the door situation.  Four feet ahead of these controlled entrances were another set of doors with the same exact commandments.  The only difference is that there was now a railing which prevented postal patrons from “crossing over” to gate-crash through the out-door.

Inside various cameras were stationed to ward off any misbehavior on my part.  Signs lined the walls advising me of the multitude of federal statutes that existed to incarcerate me for eternity if I dared exhale in the wrong location.

Of particular interest to me was the fanfare of waste receptacles.  Some for unwanted mail, some for the garbage advertisements that routinely were delivered at a discount far below the price I pay for a stamp but received unsolicited.  More signs advising about the anti-social behavior of littering and/or using the wrong can for the wrong reason. And, naturally there were the ever present recycling bins to assist in tainting our collective moral compass.

 “And, naturally there were the ever present recycling bins to assist in tainting our collective moral compass.”

Yet, what was remarkably absent was there were no signs indicating where certain box numbers were located.  And, that is such a friendly gesture to a truly service oriented service.

Once I had made a hasty retreat from the hallowed halls of the public mailroom and escaped from USPS cell-block and returned to my car, which I suspected would have been confiscated by the Gestapo for some minor infraction of central government mis-marching on my part, I beat feet for the nearest exit of the sacred shrine of federal land control.

As luck would have it I then needed to go to the UPS store.  UPS  does NOT equal USPS.  I parked where I was asked in a sign to park “for the convenience of their less mobile patrons.”  I walked inside and was welcomed.  Everyone treated me like someone there to do business; in other words professionally and not like a criminal.  I left happy, safe, and satisfied.

Here is the point…if you haven’t figured it out on your own (I respect your intellect and good will).

Government was exercising in it most egregious manner its second primary directive;  Regulate Everything. “Regulate Everything” carries with it the presumption of control over others.  That is poor and unnecessary government intrusion!

The alternative is private enterprise where businesses trust themselves to provide a valuable service needed by the public.  Therefore they attempt to earn repeat customers.

We need far more privatization of government functions…so that government actually FUNCTIONS.

That is the Way I See It.