Suicidal Republicans

It is literally pathetic how some Republicans act.  I am not a Republican, so I may be jaded, but here are some questions.

To: George Will, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham…and the list goes on.

Who do you seriously think will be president if not Donald J. Trump?

The only realistic alternative, because of our corrupted self-serving electoral system, is Hillary Clinton.  Of the 1800 plus candidates vying for the presidency it really does come down to only Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  That is not even debatable!

So, is Hillary who you seriously want as president?

If she is who you want just admit it and stop blowing smoke up everyone’s skirts.

If Hillary is elected this year, history shows that there is an 83.7% chance she will be re-elected in 2020.  NO, a different Republican candidate in the next election cycle is extraordinarily unlikely to unseat her.  As proof, just look at Mitt Romney’s dismal failure in an election where Barack Obama was hated.

After eight inevitable years of Hillary Clinton do you actually seriously believe that the nation will be better off than if Donald Trump were president?  If you believe so you are stupider than you sound most of the time with your slander about Donald Trump.

Do you seriously believe that under Hillary Clinton the nation will get a “better” Supreme Court?  If you do than you are deluding yourselves into a fantasy world.  Change your names to Alice because you have jumped down a rabbit hole of abnormal reasoning.

The senate, which will be Democrat controlled by early 2017 will ratify any Judicial appointment Hillary sets forward.  Yes, it is that simple and the results WILL BE catastrophic.  You are probably whistling you way through a scary deep dark forest of wishful thinking that the Republicans can hold-off any judicial appointments for three-quarters of a decade.

Simply to go along with your delusion of obstructive legislative action, let accept the completely irrational case that the Republican maintain control of the Senate.  In just the past couple of weeks the nation has witnessed the Supreme Court fail to make any definitive decision of relevant issue.  They have been tied 4-4.

Hence, lower court rulings have remained intact.  That has provided “conservatives” with moments to dance in the streets cheering like a ticker-tape parade.  It will not last!

The political elite whose main agenda is to exercise “power over” the populace rather than “empowerment of” the people will learn quickly.  They will begin pressuring lower courts to make unconstitutional rulings. [It will happen.]

When that occurs the liberal imposer in the SCOTUS will simply “tie the vote” on any reviews of lower court decisions.  A tie vote will result in victory over the rights of the people and the sanctity of the US Constitution.

It is time for the failed Republican self-appointed judges, such as Romney, Bush, and Graham to buy some new hat racks…because their heads should be used for something better.

I began by saying I was not a Republican.  All the mental health counselors say that when a person threatens suicide…take action to get them assistance, whether they sound believable or not.  The Republican Party has some suicidal contributors threatening to lead the lemmings over the cliff.  I am here to assist by offering sound advice.

That Is The Way I See It.

Ramblings…About the Past, and Present

Rambling:  that is what you all get in this post.

I notice that the culture and modern morals of the United States closely resemble the culture and morals of the ancient American culture and morals, as depicted in the Book of Mormon, when they were at their worst.  Lying, deceit, hatred, destruction of people and property and generally all those things which most societies and religions consider “evil” were prevalent then…and are now.

LYING

What is reported about for a majority of our elected officials is the abundance of lying.  Some of the foolish things said by people like Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi I no longer believe are the simple mistakes I use to give them credit for.  What they say now is so outrageously opposite from the truth I conclude they must be outright lying.

DECEIT

President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, Senate Leader Harry Reid, some of our statewide elected officials (two past attorneys general), our local state senator say one thing in carefully selected words, describe it as something different,and  mean something completely opposite to deceive a public unwilling examine them.

HATRED

Racism, a subject which most people can’t even define, is perpetuated by elected and appointed officials, the media, and far to many people.   It is seen in our unnecessary “hate crime” legislation.  Such legislation, although promoted as an attempt to “protect” people, is in essence only legalized segregation or reverse apartheid.  From the US Attorney General down to our state attorney general refuse to enforce laws that may hurt their fund-raising efforts, even though enforcement would benefit all people.  Our state senator proposes legislation to protect classes of people rather than all the people, even though he proclaims it to be for equity.  The media from the ultra liberal MSNBC to the ultimate right-wing FOX drive wedges of intolerance among people.  But worst of all, too many, far too many people express all forms of hatred toward people seeking a better life here than in their own country.

DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE AND PROPERTY

Our streets have too many gangs and unaccountable people punching each other, stranger, and the elderly in some acts of bravado masquerading as bravery.  We see husbands and boyfriend of popular celebrities beating of their partners.  Just the other day was a story about a man throwing a baby out the window of a moving car…because he was he was upset at the bay’s mother, his girlfriend.  I ask myself, “what led a mother of a child to even be with such a person, rather than with the child’s father?”  From pole to pole, as the saying goes, the norm is killing and destruction.  I am reminded of the final scenes from the Book of Mormon.  The people were so filled anger that they howled in despair, not because of their impending doom, but because they could not return fast enough to killing and mayhem.

All of those behaviors have been taught against for THOUSANDS of years by religions and social orders of every inclination.  Yet, I hear some people openly advocating the old cultures and norms are obsolete.

In reality all that is becoming obsolete is the humanity of humans.

That is The WAY I See It.

Answers needed, wanted.

I have a question and I hope I get some serious answers and/or comments.

At what point does someone have the authority to deprive one person of their rights and accomplishments to satisfy the desires of someone else?

I am a fussy person about words and their meaning.  I ask the above question but it frustrates me that I don’t have the words to express it more clearly.  Let me try to explain my dilemma.  “Point” is a terrible descriptive word.  By it I mean under what circumstances that may exist.  By authority I mean “control over”.    That probably does not clarify much, but I have tried.

I wanted to try to  keep the question short.  That was the best I could do at the moment.

The key, or most important aspect, to this question is what is not said outright.  What is the precise point or circumstance under which one person has right to control another?

Here is the development of the discussion.

  1. Do we or should we live in a society where there is equal protection under the law?  Let’s momentarily say “yes.”
  2. What is the precise point where I, you, or our elected officials have the authority to take money from one “rich” person and give  it to a poor person?  $50,000, $100,000, $1,000,000?  What is the precise point?
  3. Better still, who and how decides that point?

One answer I have received is “Do what is fair.”  What is fair?  Does a single 19-year-old, going to college, deserve more than a single 19 year old, not going to college?  Why?  Who sets that standard?

Does and elderly couple have an entitlement to less than a young couple?  Why?  Who sets that standard?

“There are basic human rights that everyone should have,”  is another answer I have received.  Then a list of issues like education, health care, a home, etc. follows.

Again my question is who decides what those basic human rights are?

Is it a high school education?

Is it one annual health check-up?

Is it an apartment, house, or mobile home?

Those questions are automatically followed by other equally serious questions.

What if someone does not want a high school, college, or advanced degree?  Yet, they want the benefits that come from whichever one meets their fancy, what then?

What if  someone wants a homeopathic check-up, instead of a medical certified one?  What about someone with chronic disease; should they be limited to one annual visit?

What about a family of two versus a family of six?

The question really is who gets to be judge and  jury to decide who gets what and at whose expense?

I want to know precisely.  Platitudes and lofty pontification are just dust in the wind.  Someone please give me the precise answer!

When a society, which in reality is nothing more than conglomerate of individual controllers, takes from one to give to another I would like to  know the standard it uses.

Why do I want to know that standard?  Because as the cliché’ says, “There ain’t no free lunches.”  When the individual, or a society, decides to gift something to one person…somebody pays the tab.  Who is the Master of Ceremonies, besides the thief?

I am serious when I say want someone to give me a cogent answer.  My views are pretty clear.  I seriously want others to opine.  This may appear frivolous and specious, but the truth is, it is the most relevant question that can be asked of our elected leaders.  Otherwise, they will thoughtlessly get the answer incorrect.

That Is the Way I See It.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics…and, Now Lawsuits

My initial reaction to a congressional lawsuit of the president was negative.  To me it was just so much nonsense.

With Speaker John Boehner and his pied piper followers come a high level of suspicion about motive.  However, when I watched the President’s rude, childish, and disrespectful response I acquiesced to give the whole thing another look-see.  I don’t think my mind has changed, but something has been solidified.

First, there is sufficient cause to impeach Obama.  That is no longer a matter of dispute.  Barack Obama should be impeached in the House of Representative and convicted by the Senate, and consequently removed from office.  That is a foregone conclusion beyond rational debate.  That is what I believe the House should do.

I also understand why the House has dillidallied around.  The US Senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid, would not do the correct thing of convicting Obama even if he were caught burning the original Declaration of Independence.  Reid and his renegades would explain it away as an accident.  Thus, a House impeachment achieves nothing when the character of the senate is also equivalent to nothing.

The House has been mildly patient in holding off with any impeach…at least until after the November elections when they will know if a bunch of Republican candidates have been able to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  If Republicans take control of the senate, then the Republican  House could have impeachment completed and ready for the new senators to act on by their first day in office.  Joe Biden who has demonstrated mental unfitness for office could be gone by March 15, 2015.  I am not advocating that, because that would leave us with John Boehner, who would spend as much time in tanning salons as Obama spends golfing. 

But impeach is a good option to be rid of the American embarrassment called Barack Obama.

The lawsuit business is a different matter.

The lawsuit of the president is to place in the hands of Supreme Court the decision which Congress should be making.  The lawsuit is about an official declaration by the Supreme Court that the president’s powers are limited.  Congress, lacking the will to act as affirmatively as several presidents have,  is willing to place the Constitutional design of the federal government at risk.

Congress wants SCOTUS to say what they are unwilling to say, “Mr. President, stop the executive orders or we will stop the funding.”  It is not, has not, and never should be the place of the president to issues executive orders.  He should only take executive actionWITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF APPROVED LEGISLATION AND BUDGETS!

No lawsuit or decision by the Supreme Court will ever alter that basic reality.  Congress must act affirmatively to direct the president through legislation, or remove him from office.  No other body, not even the voters, can change that FACT of life.

That Is The Way I See It.

Presidential Culture Building

I have posted on this subject before.  I shall repeat myself.

The President of the United States is not an administrator!  He is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”  Further, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”

Those are his duties in a nutshell.  Anything more is too much more.  Anything less is dereliction of duty.

The President of the United States is not an administrator!   For far too long, and excessively so under Barack Obama, the presidents have sought to be administrators.  To repeat, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  That mean he shall execute the laws and go no further.  Accordingly, he should not deviate from the execution thereof.  Both are neither his responsibility, right, nor privilege.

The president is figure-head domestically, with eminent power internationally.  That translates to two serious roles.  I shall address the latter first.

The president should be representing the United States in all matters which affect the states in international affairs.  That does not include dalliances with nation building and the internal or even international affairs of other nations…up to the point that those affairs clearly and directly prove an eminent threat to the states.  Thus the president should be the best of diplomats which the nation can produce, not the poorest as we currently are experiencing.

Domestically the president is a culture builder.  That is about the sum and substance of it.  A lazy or inept Congress does not expand the president’s role.

As a culture builder each president has had their own style and capabilities.  Under John F. Kennedy American saw a vision of the future.  Beyond the cliché “the sky literally was the limit” of what and where we as a people could go.  Under Ronald Reagan America thrived with a culture of confidence.

Kennedy knew how to motivate people to believe in their future and hope in their heritage.  “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  We all remember hearing those words directly from him, or from a teacher along the years.  Less often heard were these words,

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans – born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage – and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge – and more.

Ronald Reagan was no lesser a man of culture of confidence.  Boldly he faced the world and America’s greatest adversary, Russia, and said,

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Now we come to today’s America, with Barack Obama as President.  He has established a culture of corruption.

As maligned as Jimmy Carter was for his failed presidency even he had moments where he was a true executive.  Obama has had none.  Jimmy Carter gave a rousing speech  wherein he said “”I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy,…The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.”  People were motivated.  Two days later he acted by dismissing his dismissive cabinet.

Yet, under Barack Obama there have been a multitude of failures.  It sounds like every department in the executive branch has found a way to offend, alienate, or deceive the American public.  The national government stinks of corruption.  That is the result of a culture perpetrated by this president.  Allow me to explain.

President don’t surround themselves with pansies.  They don’t sit in  the audience of wall flowers.  The men and women they surround themselves with are people of strong and dominating personalities.  They are the proverbial crowd that if given an inch they will take a mile.  Such powerful people must be led by an equally powerful person.  The presidency is no place for an apologist.  Barack Obama is an apologist.

Like most presidents Barack has gathered around him a gaggle of arrogant peacocks.  That may sound bad or maybe insulting.  It is seriously not meant to  sound that way.  Peacocks are fierce, protective, flamboyant, loud and proud.  They are arrogant.  By necessity the heads of departments in the executive branch MUST BE arrogant.  But they must be led.

President Obama has generated a culture of corruption by failing to lead.  He has failed to set the standards of conduct which he promised in his campaign speeches.  Those speeches were lofty and appealing to some.  However, they are now fading puffs of smoke.  And, this president’s response has been to whimper, snivel and insult.

Every department has been taken over by the person at the top (without any leadership), seeking arrogant acclaim and accolades.  Obama has permitted it to happen.  He has set no standards.  His role allows him to require of them regarding the duties of their office.  He hasn’t, and they have run amuck embarrassing both him and the nation.

He fears to offend Eric Holder, by insisting that the AG do his duty without fear or favor.  Just today he was used faint praise to defend the head of the CIA for violations of the law and lying.  He trembles at the idea that Hillary might reveal him for the incompetent person he is…if he confronts her about  Benghazi.  He has used executive orders to interfere with Congress, but no influence over the blatant lies of Lois Lerner.  He allows his flunkies to send guns into Mexico Cartels, allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to flood the border, and has no capacity to direct his Secretary of State to get a marine home from Mexico.

When confronted with a lying CIA Director he accepts the advice from self-inflated underlings to distract America with condemnation of Israel.

As much as I dislike repeating the old cliché Barack Obama is allowing the fox to guard the hen-house.  No, in reality, he is allowing foxes, wolves, and weasels to run the barnyard.

That Is The Way I See It.

 

To Act, or, Not to Act. That is the question.

I tend to friend folks on Facebook that fit the category of people who describe themselves as “conservative.”  Of course I have friended others that have the opposite point of view.  It makes no difference, really.  Why?

Because in my experience most folks on Facebook simply like to repost cutesy “memes.”  The ones I see the most of are criticism of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.  Usually they are depicted lying in their native environment of ignorance.  Just pictures.

Yet, the people behind posting those pictures are at various levels of seriousness.  They truly dislike the excessive expansion of government control.

The role of the governments in the USA is to provide protection to its citizens as they (THE CITIZENS) hack their way through the jungle building paths of purpose and progress.  The popular cult of bureaucracy now views that role as obsolete.  They believe they must build the path, protect the people, keep the people off the paths, regulate how rapidly the people may, etc.

Over the years of unfettered practice the bureaucracy has come to design a mechanism of providing benefits with hidden controls over productivity.  Production is now power by the steam engine of corporate welfare.

Yet, the cartoons and complains go on, and on, and on.  As a society we are adept at howling at the moon…but wait for dinner to arrive on our doorstep.

It is frustrating to watch.  Too many people, far too many, bark from behind the safety of the closed front door and then cower when confronted with the opportunity to bite the mailman of bureaucracy and regulation.  Too often I have heard people say “I am doing my part.  See the meme I posted defaming Obama.”  The president of pandering chuckles behind his golf cart, “stick and stones; sticks and stones.”

Who is willing to actually live beyond their “sticky notes” of criticism?

I have presented this idea many times, and I will continue to do so.  “Actions speak louder than words.”

If a scant fourteen percent (14%) of the people of this nation, not a majority or even close to it, would embrace their inner voice they could change the misbehavior of the derelict domination of regulatory bureaucrats.  How?

Stop buying!  Yep, it’s that simple.  Stop buying.  Every non-essential could be left on the store shelves.  AND OH, there are so many non-essentials.

Yes, I know the weak-willed would argue about hurting the economy and local businesses.  I have heard all the arguments…at least a dozen times.  But the question remains; “Has waiting, hoping, and posting memes done ANY good, beyond assisting one to believe they are doing something?”

The answer is a resounding “NO.”

With a 14-18% decline in economic activity the Congress, even the most insane among them, would begin to tremble at the prospect.  As the old saying goes “money is the mother’s milk of politics.”  With a little spilled milk the hall of the capital would be flowing with tears.

The time is here now, not tomorrow, not November, not in 2016.  NOW!  Simply say no more buying until there is less regulation.  In the end the economy will be far stronger and the nation will be far more unified.

That Is The Way I See It.

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences, and such.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness;

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity;

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness;

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair;

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us;

we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.”

As in all times, those were the days of Robert K. Merton.  The year was 1936 and our friend had written a novel piece of non-fiction titled “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.”  Thus began the formalization of the theory of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
In short this law simply means that if you don’t think about  what might happen, or don’t know what might happen, there is a reasonable chance that what you didn’t think or didn’t know will happen.  Not is not essentially where the problem exists!
The far more serious problem exist when you don’t prepare for the unexpected to happen.  Unintended consequences have their greatest impact on those with that have unintended reactions.
We frequently observe this phenomena occur with zeal among government officials.  Government officials tend to be eagerly engaged in “setting thing right.”  These are the pandering potentates of populism that rush to reorganize the kitchen because a flash in the pan of social insult.  Stated differently a little spilled oil causes them to slide mercilessly into leaving skid marks on routine social events.
I make reference to one such faux pas; the unintended consequence of seeking even greater society wide applause for being in office.
Over the years politicians have talked, argued, and pontificates about voter turnout and participation.  I believe there is a couple of reasons for that discussion.  First, and maybe foremost is that it is a safe subject.  A politician can’t be made to look too much jackass by encouraging more people to vote.  Unless, of course, that jackass is a Democrat.
The second reason is because some politicians actually believe that any participation by the electorate is better than informed participation.  “Better a posse of galloping fools, than the man who knows the truth.”
So I have set the stage for my particular bias.  Not only is it unnecessary to encourage uninformed voters, it is detrimental.
Yet, the analysis goes further than that.  Unintended consequences.
As politicians have sought to make access to voting easier I doubt it has made voting more informed.  Some statistics support my assessment.  And, as we all know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Online voting, mail-in voting, identification-less voting, etc. have been promoted and continued to be flaunted about by the vote buyers.  The unintended consequence has been a deterioration in the perceived merit of voting.  Generally, people are less inclined to vote because the value of voting has been diminished.
There is a saying I heard once those goes something like this.  Performance monitored, improves.  Performance monitored and measures improves dramatically.  The sentiment applies with easy voting.  When a person needs only put in minimal effort to vote the performance of voting will not ultimately improve.
Measuring and monitoring voting should have an element of required effort by the participant.  The intended consequence will be improved performance.
The years of unfettered and “make-easy” voting have had the unintended consequence of lessening the perceived value of voting.  Sadly, because one element that causes unintended consequences is as Sociologist Merton said;
“The two top reasons why the law of unintended consequences works, according to Merton, is that the framers of
a social change are either ignorant of possible far-reaching effects of the law or make errors when they develop a
change that don’t have the effects they desired.”
A person’s value system may also fail to make them look past their system when taking an action of any kind to evaluate how the law of unintended consequences might work.
Rather than perpetuating a theory that easier voting will improve voting, perhaps we ought to reverse course from that preconceived notion.  Make the merit of voting have a little touch of personal effort.
I suggest a modest proposal, hopefully suitable to at least Jonathan Swift.
1.  Get the government out of the partisan candidate selection process.
2.  All voting return to being required at a polling place; just dump all of the mail-in and online voting nonsense.  Both are unmonitorable and logistically measurable.
3.  National elections should be 24 hour events.  Every poll in every state opens at the same time and closes at the same time, regardless of time zone.
The emphasis on ease has failed us.  It is one of the unintended consequences.  However, the devastating outcome has been that our eager beavers of social restructuring (elected elitists) remain unprepared for the FACT that unintended consequences have occurred and thus continue spin their wheels while bogged down in the mud of self-importance.
That Is The Way I See It.

Is Ethical Behavior to Hard?

Is ethical behavior by elected officials too broad to ask for?

Elect means to “choose out from” among a group.  The clear implication is that one is chosen to represent the group.  It is anticipated that the group has such confidence that the one “chosen out from” among them will consistently act in their stead as though they were each standing there themselves.

It takes some thought to digest that concept.  One that is elected is not independent of the group from which he was chosen.  In fact he is a strict representative of that group.  Now, then, the group has a rightful expectation that the elected will represent them at their best, not at his best.  Both the elected and the elector should understand that given similar circumstances (whatever they may ultimately be) any members would act the same if guided by ethics.

Thus, what then is ethics?

It is the consummate expression of preserving life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for every man, without the initiation of coercion, force or dominion.

Ethics is not a matter of transient religious views, culture, or customs.  Ethics is a matter cooperative co-existence.

Religion, law, culture and even common decency says “do not kill”.  Yet, when violence invades life and liberty killing may in fact be the most ethical of choices.  Correspondingly, depriving a man of his right to pursue happiness may be met with extreme ethical force of resistance.

How does this relate to the initial question “Is ethical behavior by elected officials too broad to ask for?”

Ethical behavior would prevent an elected man from violating his obligation to the society which elected him to the extent he would chose never to be deceptive to his electors.  He would harbor no secrets and certainly would not invade one man’s pursuit of happiness to shower greater happiness upon another.

What is most significant is that any member of the electorate, given equal information and opportunity, to act with a full measure of ethical foundation would chose nearly precisely the same.

Elected officials should perpetually ask themselves that very question.  “IF another were given my authority and power, with an intact ethical mindset, would he do as I am presuming to do?”  The only safe and reliable answer to that question is a sincere “YES!”  Any other answer acknowledges that personal persuasions are playing a stronger role than ethical choices.

That self assessment is only “too broad to ask for” if the elected official has weakened his moral fiber to the point that ethics is a burden rather than a blessing.

Now, above I mentioned a justification of actions which are normally, and ought to be, reprehensible.  However, great men have revealed to us the idea that it is the nature and disposition of just about all men once they gain a little authority, as they presume, they begin to exercise unthical behavior.  They will seek to bear down upon other men with dominion.

When that happens they loose their strength in leadership and of being elected.  For their own sakes, as well as for the community, the society must call into question their ethics.  And, if justified they ought to be striped of authority.

Men of ethics would not oppose such sanction and course of questioning.  How do we know that to be true?  By asking that question “IF another were given my authority and power, with an intact ethical mindset, would he do as I am presuming to do?”  Making poor choices is not an essential flaw in mankind.  In fact, in some circles, men rejoice over making mistakes because it leads them to better correct their inclinations in future endeavors.

Seeking to hide the existence of poor choices is a fundamental flaw of mankind.  Not only have they erred in their ethical decisions, but violate the trust of their fellow beings far more deeply by choosing to hide their mistake in the sackcloth of intentional deceit.

Far more important in life than winning the victory is “winning the choice between being ethical and unethical” behavior.  A kind society will establish a means whereby the society may respond to the inevitable ethical flaws of its leaders.  The leaders, more than any man unelected, should desire such a corrective process.  The entire society should seek diligently for the day that such a process is no longer needed, rather than a time when it is no longer wanted.