Tulsi Gabbard Addressed 2024 South Carolina Conservative Conference

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard speaks during the fourth U.S. Democratic presidential candidates 2020 election debate in Westerville, Ohio, U.S., October 15, 2019. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5062824/user-clip-tulsi-gabbard-speaks-sc-conservative-conference

Two Points:

One greater, one lesser.
The greater first.

Former Hawaii Congressional Representative Tulsi Gabbard made some salient points in her address yesterday (3/18) at the Vision ’24 National Conservative Forum, an event held by the South Carolina Conservative Conference at the North Charleston Convention Center, which was co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. However, in the approximately 2-minute video excerpt which she tweeted, what she failed to mention (because it is automatically understood, and is the law) on the topic of hiring, is that the hiring ABSOLUTELY IS considering the qualifications of individuals/applicants, and hiring decisions ARE NOT being made EXCLUSIVELY based upon immutable characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, identity, etc.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "God who gave us life gave us Liberty." Any political party that tries to erase God from every facet of our public life can’t be trusted to protect those inalienable God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution. pic.twitter.com/l86Y30oR2f

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 21, 2023

When given 2 identical & equally-qualified applicants, and 1 is a

The Right To Bear Arms

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

[NOTE: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1907-1995), was first nominated by POTUS EISENHOWER January 12, 1956 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (often called the “Mini Supreme Court”) to fill the position created by the death of Judge Harold M. Stephens, was confirmed by the Senate 28 March that year, and on 23 June 1969 was nominated to be Chief Justice of the SCOTUS by POTUS NIXON following the resignation of CJ Earl Warren, who was also nominated by POTUS EISENHOWER, and  presided over numerous landmark Constitutional law cases and wrote the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Loving v. Virginia (1967). CJ Warren also led the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of POTUS KENNEDY, was Governor of California from 1943-1953, and widely considered one of the nation’s most influential Chief Justices. CJ Burger was known more for his administrative acumen than for his intellect, and in 1974 authored the unanimous decision in United States v. Nixon, which rejected POTUS NIXON’s claim of Executive Privilege in the midst of the Watergate crimes, and eventually chose to resign, rather than face certain impeachment, thereby becoming the first POTUS to ever resign from office.]

Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court, official portrait

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides — setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments — the Bill of Rights — were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new “monster” national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment’s guarantees — against “establishment of religion,” “free exercise” of religion, free speech and free press — came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a “national” or “standing” army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:

“to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty … Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins.”

We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the “right” guaranteed; in short, it was declared “necessary” in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word “because” was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the “state militia” serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns — rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols — with all firearms, including what are now called

CDA Section 230 violates Equal Protection Clause & threatens National Security

There’s been a significant amount of handwringing over remarks made by so-called “free speech” advocates who assert that anyone can say anything online “because it’s ‘free’ speech,” and ostensibly protected by the First Amendment.

I demur.

Facebook, Instagram (owned by FB), and Twitter, which are the “Big Three” online Social Media (SoMe) corporate megaliths (that is, if Twitter survives Elon Musk, if not, then TikTok may take Twitter’s place), have increasingly come under fire in the past several years — justifiably so — for turning a blind eye to bad behavior, “speech” in particular (as writing and/or video, both mediums posted on the services), thereby, in essence, becoming purveyors of lies, complicit by their inactions, in aiding and abetting actions of bad actors, consequently harming our nation — a significant portion of which continues originating in nations hostile to American national interests.

Writing in the Global Security Review, June 10, 2019, in an article entitled “Facebook, Compromised: How Russia Manipulated U.S. Voters” — the second of a four-part series — Sophia Porotsky detailed how Russia, as a malign foreign actor, sought, and continues seeking, the downfall of the United States.

“Russian Information Warfare content on social media attempts to subvert Western democracies in five ways:

1.) Undermine public confidence in democratic government;
2.) Exacerbate internal political divisions;
3.) Erode trust in government;
4.) Push the Russian agenda in foreign populations, and;
5.) Create confusion and distrust by blurring fact and fiction.

Russian propaganda on social media can be divided into four themes:

1.) Political messages intended to foster distrust in government (e.g. allegations of voter fraud, corruption);
2.) Financial propaganda (i.e. create distrust in Western financial institutions);
3.) Social issues (e.g. ethnic tensions, police brutality), and;
4.) Doomsday-style conspiracy theories.

“Information warfare content is generated and disseminated through channels that fall into three attribution categories:

1.) White (overt);
2.) Grey (less-overt), and;
3.) Black (covert) channels.

They propagate a blend of authentic, manipulated, and fake stories and they feed off of and reinforce each other.”

Among the numerous sources cited was “Russia’s Approach to Cyber Warfare,” a paper written by Michael Connell and Sarah Vogler published March 2017 by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) — an 80-year, independent, nonprofit research and analysis organization dedicated to the safety and security of the nation that informs the decisions of Navy, Marine Corps and DOD leaders as the Department of the Navy’s federally funded research and development center — which stated that,

“Russia views cyber very differently than its western counterparts, from the way Russian theorists define cyberwarfare to how the Kremlin employs its cyber capabilities.” Part of that difference is that the Russians “conceptualize cyber operations within the broader framework of information warfare, a holistic concept that includes computer network operations, electronic warfare, psychological operations, and information operations.”

And as part of their overall operations in that realm, not only does Russia “employ cyber as a conventional force enabler,” they integrate cybercriminals, hacktivists, and other nefariously malign non-state actors into their overall operations scheme, a practice also undertaken by “China, Iran, North Korea, and other cyber adversaries.”

That information is further borne out by the writings of Professor Dr. Mark Galeotti, PhD, who in June 2022 was recently banned from travel to Russia, wrote an OpEd in the independent news journal The Moscow Times, published December 22, 2017, that, “It is hard to sustain a serious claim that NATO tanks are about to surge eastwards – though some of the Kremlin’s more fanciful propagandists do try – but the virtues of the “secret battlefield” of intelligence work is that it is precisely covert.”

Dr. Galeotti is an internationally-recognized expert in security politics, intelligence services and criminality of modern Russia, is a Senior Non-Resident Fellow of the Institute of International Relations Prague, an Associate Fellow at the Council on Geostrategy, Honorary Professor at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, Honorary Professor at University College London, and Executive Director and principal in Mayak Intelligence, a London-based consultancy specializing in, and primarily focusing upon understanding organized and transnational crime, war, politics and history in Russia. Dr. Galieotti is also a contributing member of the Network of Experts of the independent civil-society organization Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.

The root cause of such problems, wrote David J. Smith in “How Russia Harnesses Cyber Warfare,” published in Defense Dossier, American Foreign Policy Council (August 2012: Issue 4), 9,” is inherently based in, and the natural outcome of,

Laws That Don’t Apply To Wealthy People

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.

“My sight is failing,” she said finally. “Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?”

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters. It did not seem strange to learn that the pigs had bought themselves a wireless set, were arranging to install a telephone, and had taken out subscriptions to John Bull, TitBits, and the Daily Mirror. It did not seem strange when Napoleon was seen strolling in the farmhouse garden with a pipe in his mouth-no, not even when the pigs took Mr. Jones’s clothes out of the wardrobes and put them on, Napoleon himself appearing in a black coat, ratcatcher breeches, and leather leggings, while his favourite sow appeared in the watered silk dress which Mrs. Jones had been used to wear on Sundays.
— excerpt from Animal Farm (1945), chapter X, George Orwell’s (1903-1950) novel

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 2005 Official Portrait

Today, Tuesday, November 1, 2022, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary order that

Voting Rights as a Constitutional Amendment

The United States Constitution has been amended 27 times.

Of those 27 amendments, there is but one solitary matter which has consistently appeared over the years.

And similarly, there is but one matter which has consistently been problematic for the United States.

That solitary matter has been addressed in the Constitution, to be affirmed, confirmed, and reaffirmed, time, and time, and time again.

And that single, solitary matter, is voting.

Exactly 5 of the 27 amendments — or 18.5% — to the U.S. Constitution have dealt with matters related to voting. If by the number of instances in which the matter is addressed is any indication of its importance, there is NO MORE greater matter to civil society, and by extension, to our democratic republic, than voting.

And yet, as evidenced by the corollary to those same amendments, voting has been, and continues to be, the single most abused, and misused tool of those who attempt to wrest power AWAY FROM the people, and accumulate it to unto themselves, and/or their favored political party.

Voting gives POWER TO THE PEOPLE; and that is precisely why some do NOT want We The People to have power, as our Constitutional Democratic Republic mandates.

Here are the amendments to the Constitution, as they read, which have all dealt with matters of voting.

Beginning with the:

Mitch McConnell: Acquittal Vindicated the Constitution, Not Trump

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), Daguerreotype portrait by Matthew Brady’s Studio c.1844/45

Joseph Story (1779-1845) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, nominated by President James Madison, who served in office from February 3, 1812 until September 10, 1845.

He was also: Republican Congressman from Massachusetts, 1808-1809; Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1811-1845; Acting Chief Justice, 1835-1836, 1844; Professor of Law Harvard University 1829-1845.

He is perhaps most renown for his work “Commentaries On The Constitution of the United States” which was first published in 1833, though he authored several other books on the law, and Constitution.

The United States Constitution states in part as follows:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Justice Story wrote about the matter of impeachment at great length, and in part wrote that:

§393. It is obvious, that, upon trials on impeachments, one of two courses must be adopted in case of a conviction; either for the court to proceed to pronounce a full and complete sentence of punishment for the offence according to the law of the land in like cases, pending in the common tribunals of justice, superadding the removal from office, and the consequent disabilities; or, to confine its sentence to the removal from office and other disabilities. If the former duty be a part of the constitutional functions of the court, then, in case of an acquittal, there cannot be another trial of the party for the same offence in the common tribunals of justice, because it is repugnant to the whole theory of the common law, that a man should be brought into jeopardy of life or limb more than once for the same offence. A plea of acquittal is, therefore, an absolute bar against any second prosecution for the same offence. If the court of impeachments is merely to pronounce a sentence of removal from office and the other disabilities; then it is indispensable, that provision should be made, that the common tribunals of justice should be at liberty to entertain jurisdiction of the offence, for the purpose of inflicting the common punishment applicable to unofficial offenders. Otherwise, it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether, consistently with the great maxim above mentioned, established for the security of the life and limbs and liberty of the citizen, a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments. And if no such second trial could be had, then the grossest official offenders might escape without any substantial punishment, even for crimes, which would subject their fellow citizens to capital punishment. [emphasis added]

§394. The constitution, then, having provided, that judgment upon impeachments shall not extend further, than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold office, (which, however afflictive to an ambitious and elevated mind, would be scarcely felt, as a punishment, by the profligate and the base,) has wisely subjected the party to trial in the common criminal tribunals, for the purpose of receiving such punishment, as ordinarily belongs to the offence. Thus, for instance, treason, which by our laws is a capital offence, may receive its appropriate punishment ; and bribery in high officers, which otherwise would be a mere disqualification from office, may have the measure of its infamy dealt out to it with the same unsparing severity, which attends upon other and humbler offenders.

– Joseph Story, “Commentaries On The Constitution of the United States” §393, §394, p278-280, Book III, chapter X; 1833

How the cowardly, weasel-like jellyfish of a man “Moscow Mitch, the Bitch” McConnell could POSSIBLY use the word “vindicate” in reference to the United States Constitution is beyond the scope of imagination – however derelict and perverted it may be – and it is definitely most perverted.

McConnell wrote “Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.” -and- that “The text is unclear” about impeachment, whether “the Senate can try and convict former officers.”

McConnell had also earlier written a “dear colleague” letter to his fellow Banana Republicans in the Senate, in which he wrote in pertinent part that “I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal…”

His mind is like concrete – thoroughly mixed, and permanently set.

The cases of Tennessee United States Senator William Blount – impeached July 7, 1797, on charges of conspiring to assist in Great Britain’s attempt to seize Spanish-controlled territories in modern-day Florida and Louisiana, tried December 17, 1798–January 14, 1799 – and Ulysses Grant’s Secretary of War William Belknap – who tendered his resignation March 2, 1876 only moments before the House impeached him, was tried March 3–August 1, 1876 – demonstrate very clearly that officials may be tried on impeachment charges after they’re out of office. Or else, it completely absolves any official of any responsibility for any act of criminal wrong-doing while in office. It is the intellectual and moral equivalent of saying “so-and-so doesn’t live in Texas anymore, and moved to Minnesota 10 years ago, so s/he can’t be tried for murder or any crimes committed while residing in Texas.”

To assert as much is so absurdly preposterous that it defies imagination.

It’s an ethically reprehensible, morally wrong and judiciously untenable to deny anyone – including society – justice. And that is, in effect, what has happened with Donald Trump; society has been denied justice for the reprehensible, morally repugnant, and outright illegal acts of Donald Trump while in office as the President.

McConnell claims that Trump can be tried in other courts, and cites Justice Story’s writing that:

“There is also much force in the remark, that an impeachment is a proceeding purely of a political nature. It is not so much designed to punish an offender, as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors. It touches neither his person, nor his property ; but simply divests him of his political capacity.” –– §406, chapter X, book III, p289

“And the final judgment is confined to a removal from, and disqualification for, office ; thus limiting the punishment to such modes of redress, as are peculiarly fit for a political tribunal to administer, and as will secure the public against political injuries. In other respects the offence is left to be disposed of by the common tribunals of justice, accord- ing to the laws of the land, upon an indictment found by a grand jury, and a trial by jury of peers, before whom the party is to stand for his final deliverance, like his fellow citizens.” –– §407, chapter X, book III, p290

But, rest assured: Trump is completely free and clear of any charges related to impeachment. However, there are other charges at the state level which he may face for things he did while in office, including most notably, attempting to persuade Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to manipulate the results of the election in that state to throw the election to Trump’s favor. The Fulton County District Attorney, and Georgia State Attorney General are investigating that matter.

And just to be utterly and absolutely certain, the word “vindicate” is defined as meaning:

1. To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof: “Our society permits people to sue for libel so that they may vindicate their reputations” (Irving R. Kaufman).
2. To defend, maintain, or insist on the recognition of (one’s rights, for example).
3. To demonstrate or prove the value or validity of; justify: The results of the experiment vindicated her optimism.
4. Obsolete To exact revenge for; avenge.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.)

1. to clear from guilt, accusation, blame, etc, as by evidence or argument

2. to provide justification for: his promotion vindicated his unconventional attitude.

3. to uphold, maintain, or defend (a cause, etc): to vindicate a claim.

4. (Law) Roman law to bring an action to regain possession of (property) under claim of legal title

5. (Historical Terms) Roman law to bring an action to regain possession of (property) under claim of legal title

6. rare to claim, as for oneself or another

7. obsolete to take revenge on or for; punish

8. obsolete to set free
(Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014)

1. to clear, as from an accusation or suspicion: to vindicate someone’s honor.

2. to afford justification for; justify.

3. to uphold or justify by argument or evidence.

4. to maintain or defend against opposition.

5. to claim for oneself or another.

6. Obs. to avenge.

7. Obs. to free.

8. Obs. to punish.
(Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010)

“Moscow Mitch, the Bitch” McConnell is a Banana Republican from Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader, the biggest weasel in Washington, D.C., and an ardent, though oblique, supporter of the Cult of Trump.

---

Acquittal Vindicated the Constitution, Not Trump

wsj.com
Sunday, February 14, 2021
by Mitch McConnell

January 6 was a shameful day. A mob bloodied law enforcement and besieged the first branch of government. American citizens tried to use terrorism to stop a democratic proceeding they disliked.

There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone. His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended.

President-elect Donald Trump leaves a meeting with Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, at the U.S. Capitol November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC Zach Gibson/Getty Images

I was as outraged as any member of Congress. But senators take our own oaths. Our job wasn’t to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate’s first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution.

Some brilliant scholars believe

Senate Banana Republicans Will Let Trump Go Free, And In The Process, Damage Themselves

Banana Republicans in the United States Senate do NOT, and will NOT need, “smoking gun evidence” to convict Donald Trump of Insurrection, because in their warped imaginations, he did nothing wrong.

Those feckless individuals have not merely bowed the knee to Trump, or fallen prostate at his feet to lick his boots and the ground he walks upon, but by so doing, they have unambiguously signaled that they are not merely corrupted, but are traitorously and treasonously aligned, as well.

Allan Lichtman

Their fealty, their loyalty, their oath, though it may have appeared so, is NOT to the Constitution, but to some other nation, some other government, one that is NOT the United States of America – The Cult of Trump.

The benighted Moscow Mitch McConnell and his equally benighted Kooky Kentucky Klown pal Rand Paul are still up to no good.

---

Here Is The Smoking Gun Evidence To Back Impeachment Of Donald Trump

By Dr. Allan Lichtman, PhD, opinion contributor
02/08/21 10:00 AM EST

Allan Lichtman is a Distinguished Professor of History at American University, and an election forecaster. He is the author of “The Embattled Vote in America: From the Founding to the Present.” He tweets @AllanLichtman.

While the House impeachment managers have focused on events leading up to the Capitol breach, it was the real time response from Donald Trump to the rioters which yields smoking gun evidence of his intent to incite the insurrection. Trump failed to promptly call off his followers or to summon timely assistance for the police, despite pleas from his fellow Republicans caught up in the mayhem. His final words that day connect his incendiary statements about a “stolen election” to the storming of the Capitol.

As he watched the insurrection unfold on television, with some delight according to witnesses, Trump made no immediate demand that the rioters leave the Capitol. He failed to heed the pleas of Republicans in Congress, who desperately tried to call him with no response. “We are begging essentially, and he was nowhere to be found,” Representative Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio said. We know Trump did call Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama after mistakenly dialing Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Trump called Tuberville not to ask about his safety or to offer assistance, but to discuss a strategy for objecting to the count of electoral votes.

When rioters breached the Capitol in full view of cameras, Trump did not appear on television to denounce them or tell his followers to cease and desist. Instead, he stoked the incitement with a tweet to attack his vice president and double down on claims about a stolen election. He wrote, “Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones.”

Trump later sent a tweet in the passive voice, “Stay peaceful!” He sent a similar message more than half an hour later. He still had not appeared in person on any medium at this point. Trump eventually released a video that told his supporters,

James A. Garfield on Separation of Church and State… in 1874

James A. Garfield

It’s always interesting to see how our forebears thought about certain fundamental matters to our nation’s governance. We have historians to guide us, who make it their life’s work to study, and investigate the men, women, and circumstances of their lives, and the times in which they lived. We can, and should be grateful to, and for, them; for they bring to life those things which, though they may seem dead, are still often, very much alive.

Following is an excerpt in whole, as found in the Congressional Record – a verbatim record of remarks made on the floor of the House of Representatives – of a statement made by then-Ohio Representative James A. Garfield, from the 19th Congressional District, who later became President of the United States, and was also, at age 50, ingloriously, the second President assassinated.

Interestingly, he survived being shot on July 2, but eventually succumbed to infection September 19, which was introduced by doctors who frequently inserted their unsterile hands into the wound in efforts to remove the bullet. Today, unless a bullet is lodged near a vital organ, or blood vessel, and is thought to possibly migrate, they’re left in situ (in place) because, the theory being, that the heat generated by firing kills any bacteria which may be introduced, and sometimes, cauterizes the wound.

---

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire in a very few words, not to argue the merits of this case but to give the ground on which the Committee on Appropriations made their recommendation. Having stated that ground, I shall leave the question to the discretion of the House.

I agree with everything that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. E. R. Hoar] has said about

Will POTUS Joe Biden Reverse Trump’s Corrupt Pardons?

WashingtonMonthly.com

Can Trump’s Pardons Be Reversed?

by Holly Brewer and Timothy Noah

President Ulysses S. Grant did it, and George W. Bush, and the Constitution would seem to encourage it.

January 22, 2021
2:07 PM

We’ve seen a lot of hand-wringing about President Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour marathon of glaringly unethical pardons, but only a little consideration (see 1-here, 2-here, 3-here, 4-here, and 5-here) about whether the Constitution permits them. A decent case can be made that it does not—and that at least some of these pardons can be reversed.

The relevant passage is Article II, Section 2, in the so-called “Commander-in-chief clause.” The president, it says, “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Nobody knows precisely what that means, but Trump has been under impeachment and awaiting Senate trial — for the second time — since January 13, 2021.

The most interesting real-life precedent for restricting a president’s right to issue pardons concerns President Andrew Johnson, who in March 1868 became the first of three presidents to be impeached by Congress, and two months later became the first to win Senate acquittal.

In March 1869, Johnson, on his last full day in office, pardoned Jacob and Moses Dupuy, who’d been convicted of defrauding the Internal Revenue Department, and Richard C. Enright, who’d been convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government. On assuming office, Johnson’s successor, President Ulysses Grant, reversed all three by calling back the U.S. marshals out delivering the pardons. A fourth pardon that Grant meant to reverse, to one James F. Martin, was permitted to stand because Martin had it already in hand, according to the late P.S. Ruckman, Jr., a political scientist at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Illinois. Grant’s reversal of Moses Dupuy’s pardon was challenged in court and upheld on the technical grounds that Dupuy never received it. (Ruckman, an expert on presidential pardons,

Why America Needs A National Uniform Voting Standards Law

How many voting-related laws are there in our allegedly “united” United States?

You’d likely be shocked to find out.

Maybe, maybe not.

And frankly, I don’t know how many voting related laws there are in our nation, and I’ve neither read, nor heard of any compendium on the subject, nor have I ever heard anyone directly or indirectly address the topic.

But, laws are finite – there are only a fixed amount at any given time – so it’s entirely possible to make a reasoned determination of that number. So let’s work it this way:

There are 3141 counties and county equivalents in the 50 United States.

If each county or county equivalent had only 1 law pertaining to voting related matters, that’d be 3141 laws.

If each state had only one law pertaining to any voting-related matter, there would be at least 50 laws.

And on the local level, Governing magazine wrote on May 31, 2019 that “nationally, there were a total of 38,779 general-purpose governments in the United States in 2017, along with another 51,296 special districts.” (Governing magazine also has a “heat map” of U.S. Local Governments from data provided by the 2017 Census of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau. Check it out. You might be amazed at what you find.)

So, if the 90,095 total general-purpose governments and special districts, 3141 counties/county equivalents and 50 states each had only 1 voting-related law, that’d be a GRAND TOTAL of 93,286 laws.

But I assure you, there are MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY MORE than just one voting-related law in each of those areas.

So, purely for illustration purposes, let’s just hypothetically say there are at LEAST 100 voting-related laws in each of the 50 United States. Doing the math, that’s 50 x 100 = 5000. Again, that’s at a minimum.

But, what if there are 200 voting-related laws in each of the 50 United States?

That’d be 10,000 voting-related laws. And that’s only at the state level.

Perhaps already you’re beginning to “get the picture,” to understand the size, scope, nature, and extent of the problem.

And to be utterly certain, and without question, the problem is the variety and number of voting-related laws, many of which are contradictory among them.

There’s LITERALLY NO justifiable, commonsensical, rational reason to have so many DIFFERENT – even blatantly contradictory – laws on just one subject over which the Federal government has ultimate authority.

Some people cry, whine, moan, groan and complain about

SCOTUS Fun Facts!

Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in March 2016. The Senate never voted on his nomination.

Led by Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell, the Senate took no action on POTUS Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick B. Garland on March 16, 2016.

The last time the Senate had NOT considered a SCOTUS nominee was 61 years 4 months 8 days prior with Harlan Johnson, who was nominated by Dwight D. Eisenhower on November 9, 1954.

The first nominee to have NO ACTION taken upon his nomination was…

Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified

True to form, radicalized, far right-wing political extremists are portraying Judge A.C. Barrett as a victim. The “poor, pitiful me” routine has taken hold in the GOP, Tea Party and other such ilk. Self loathing has never been more popular, it seems. But it does seem rather peculiar that it should find residence in the right, when for years we’ve been told that it is the political left who are such whiners and crybabies.

Aaaah… the political hypocrisy! You can smell the stench of its cooking all the way from the banks of the Potomac in Washington, D.C.

And the blindly vicious ambition! Its unmitigated violence permeates the miasmatic ether surrounding the city, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay, and beyond.

They’re both forms of pollution which Congress continues to ignore, and which are far more damaging than even dirty water, or air. For their poison, while not permanent like PFOS or PFAS, the man-made “forever chemicals” used in making non-stick coatings which are found even in newborns’ blood, there are few, if any, filters to remove such contaminants from the necessary processes we employ to govern ourselves.

While “organic,” such contaminants are far from resembling a healthy backyard compost pile where grass clippings, leaves, eggshells, coffee grounds, vegetable peelings, and other such items begin their transformation process to become rich humus, fertile soil for vegetable and plant growth. Their forms, while neither ephemeral, nor impermanent, per se, are causative of other illnesses and diseases transmitted even to the 3rd and 4th generations, and beyond – all preventable – and must be guarded against by every generation.

The only difference being, is that disorders caused by those infections are preventable by conscience, not by manufacture. And the inoculation against such infection and affliction is love.

“Contrary to the impression many have of Barrett, what is most striking about her record is not the looming specter of theocracy, but her enduring opposition to what many Christians believe justice and mercy demand, presented under the aspect of originalism — an ersatz catechism, written in the pages of her judicial opinions, that fuses the political aims of the religious right with the constitutional theories of the late Antonin Scalia.”

There is NO “war” against religious faith in this nation, nor has there ever been. Neither has there ever been any alleged “war against Christmas” by our government, nor by its elected officials and administrators… like Federal judges, and other lifetime appointees. Although, it is curious how an officially non-sectarian, non-religious government sponsors a Federal holiday acknowledging a deity, thereby giving deference, homage and support to the same.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Rather, our Founders, not all of whom were religious-minded, were cognizant of others’ desires to express themselves through the practice of a privately-held conviction of faith – if they so chose – collectively and individually, according to the dictates of their conscience, and allowed to the greatest extent possible the practice of the same, without impingement upon the practices of government, and without obtruding upon others, who might, or not, agree with them. The Founders thought that aspect of individual liberty was so inherent, so inviolable, so sacrosanct to the public good, that they ensconced it, along with a few others, and made it and them First, and foremost among all others which followed.

Our fundamental foundational governing document, the Constitution, ensures and guarantees rights to

America Has Problems

America has problems – 330,337,600 problems, to be exact.

That’s how many people – at least – are resident in the United States as of Tuesday, September 22, 2020.

Previously, there were 330,326,679 people in the USA yesterday.

PROBLEM: The House of Representatives is TOO SMALL.

FACTS: Following the 1910 Census, with the Apportionment Act of 1911, Congress set the number of Members in the House of Representatives at 435, to become effective March 1913. The 1910 Census found 92,228,496 people in our United States, so at that time, the ratio of Residents per Representative was 212,020 to 1. The ratio is now 759,396 to 1. If you feel like you’re not being represented in Congress… guess what? You’re NOT.

BACKGROUND: Apportionment refers to the process of

Going Postal Over Voting By Mail, Voting In Person, Early Voting, Voter ID, And Many More Confusing Things

Apparently, it ~has~ come to this sorry state of affairs in our nation.

After Donald the Trump’s ravages, America will DEFINITELY need to be made great again.

Perhaps more than anything, this matter points to the need for the Federal government to step in and establish an across-the-board 50-state Uniform Voting Standard law so that there are NO inconsistencies whatsoever.

Presently, there are a plethora of voting laws nationwide, some even varying within the state, as evidenced by this sentence in the news item: “Ohio offers 28 days of early, in-person voting. Traditional, in-person voting also will be available on Election Day.”

For example, in Tennessee, the Secretary of State’s website writes this about Early Voting:

“Early voting is one of two ways in which a registered voter of Tennessee may vote before the actual election day.  The second way for a registered voter to vote early is called by-mail voting.

“The early voting period typically begins twenty (20) days before an election and ends five (5) days before an election. The exception is for the Presidential Preference Primary, when early voting ends seven (7) days before the election.”

But first, there are a few catches.

As they appear on the SOS’ website they are:

Hoda Muthana

Can ANYONE tell me (or anyone else), exactly WTH is “a legal basis to return to the country” of one’s citizenship/origin?

Asking for a friend, you see.

Hoda Muthana, seated in the foreground, participates in a broadcasting class at Hoover High School in Hoover, Alabama, on August 18, 2011. (Image by Beverly Taylor/The Birmingham News)

Seriously.

If you’re born in the United States, it’s territories or protectorates, then you’re AUTOMATICALLY an American citizen. That includes Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, all U.S. Military bases worldwide, and here’s the list of U.S. protectorates:

American Samoa
Guam
Palau – While an autonomous nation, the United States provides defense, funding, social services, and the American dollar is the currency of exchange.
Puerto Rico
US Virgin Islands
Midway Atoll, Bikini Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Baker, Howard, Wake – all uninhabited islands

No questions asked… except by GOP whack-jobs, like “birthers” and other conspiracy theorists, who hallucinated after drinking the Libertarian kook-ade and concocted some hare-brained scheme to assert Barack Obama was born somewhere else, other than Hawaii.

So, yeah… New Jersey must not be a state, anymore.

And Alabama… well, it’s a state of mind – and a very sad one, at that.

Thank gawd for Mississippi, eh?

So it turns out that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, aka “Pompous Ass #2,” recently (as in yesterday, 20February2019) wrote that

Ever Had A Bad Restaurant Experience? Here’s What You Can Do.

Ever been to a busy restaurant?

Who hasn’t?

By “busy,” I mean one with many customers/patrons while you’re there. It could be any style restaurant, of course, such as a fast-food place, but more particularly, I mean to refer to restaurants that have wait staff.

In such a busy restaurant, the place will typically be crowded, practically all seats will be filled at every table, and if there’s a bar counter with chairs, it’ll be filled up too. And  on football game days, some restaurants are filled to capacity, often just as much as they’re filled on weekends year round.

It seems eating/dining out is a type of American pastime. It’s common to hear others say “go there, try that, try the new dish” at this, that or the other restaurant.

Doubtless, at some time or another, at any type of restaurant, we’ve experienced slow or poor service, and even poor quality of food in some of them. Even the well-known Waffle House chain restaurant can have moments when they’re overwhelmed with customers, thereby stressing the cook and wait staff.

So, think about how long it took you to be seated, then be waited upon, then to get your drinks, and then food, and how well (or not) your needs were attended do during the meal.

With any crowded restaurant, the large number of patrons can overwhelm the wait staff, and the kitchen staff. Yes, it can be frustrating, but you’re hungry and/or have made plans or reservations, so you don’t want go to another restaurant – and often won’t. After all, you’re already there. And it’s a hassle to do that. Right? So, you settle, suffer, and endure the poor service.

The source of the problem, and the primary matter to be addressed is inadequate staffing. What is a proper ratio of waitstaff to customers? And what is a proper ratio of kitchen staff to customers? How many chefs and line cooks does it take to support a given amount of tables during peak hours? How many bussers and host staff are needed? How many bartenders? An effective staffing ratio is the answer to those questions and others related to effective, efficient service in a full house restaurant.

In a restaurant that seats 100 people, it would be absurd to imagine that only 1 waitstaff could effectively meet the needs of all 100 patrons. Similarly, it’d be equally preposterous to think that only 1 cook could effectively or simultaneously prepare enough food for 100 patrons. That’s completely ignoring the number of

Size Matters: Neither The Congress Nor The Supreme Court Are Big Enough

Should we, as reasonable people, expect the size of our Congress – specifically, the House of Representatives – to be permanently fixed at 435 members, and never increase representation according to an increase in population? And with regard to the the Supreme Court, should only 5 people decide the fate of a nation, why not a few more, like 13 or 17?

What if I told you Congress needed about 1000 MORE Members of the House of Representatives? And, what if I told you the United States Supreme Court needs to have AT LEAST 13 Justices, and that THEY should choose from AMONG THEMSELVES the Chief Justice?

You don’t wear the same size clothing you did when you were aged 10, 15, or even 25. The People’s representation in our nation’s governance needs also needs to be properly fitted.

Having MORE Representatives would NOT cause “more logjam politics,” nor would it cause corruption, but instead, would significantly increase efficiency -and- the ease with which laws would get passed, and bad or old laws get eliminated or changed. Criminality is most often done in secret by a few. Rarely is criminal activity, even in organized crime, ever on a large scale like an army invasion. It’s always a little thing, like guerilla warfare. There were only 7 co-conspirators with President Richard M. Nixon in the criminal Watergate break-in, burglary, wiretapping, attempted cover-up, and resulting scandal. The pace at which our government moves is not merely unresponsively sluggish, it is deliberately and negligently slothful. It is being reasonably asked to do things we tell it to do, and in the process, being denied the resources – money, personnel, and time – necessary to perform those tasks. Government can, and should move much more quickly. And historically, it has.

Think of it this way:
You have three dogs, and one chicken bone. Throw it down and watch them fight.
You get two more chicken bones, and each dog has one. Problem solved.

Some would raise the matter of Constitutional interpretation in opposition to the idea, and think we should hold to a strict Constitutional interpretation – whatever “strict” is, or means – and it typically means that the modern thinkers imagine they can, and therefore attempt to conjure up a mind-reading session to interpret what the framers of the Constitution intended or hoped… even though they’ve been long dead. Sure, they gave us the Constitution, along with a means and method of updating it, which itself means that it’s not static, and can be changed. And it has been changed many times since its inception. It is a living document, not a dead one into which we attempt to blow the breath of life. It lives still.

Some think we can interpret the Constitution according to our unique needs, which the original framers could not have begun to fathom. And the fact is, that’s what we’ve always done. At least until the last 50 years, or so, until the time which gradually, the specious notion that smaller is better crept in under cover of negligence, and “downsizing” became part of the popular corporate and political vernacular. In effect, such talk is discussion is only about inefficiency, and how they have not effectively used the resources they have, nor planned appropriately.

There is no doubt that the framers of our Constitution could never have imagined that man would walk on the moon, that geosynchronous orbiting and interplanetary traveling satellites would tell us about our precise location on Earth, and our solar system, and that more than twice the computing power of history’s largest space rocket (Apollo V) could fit in your shirt pocket, or that our union would have well over 330,000,000 residents.

Button Gwinnett (1735–1777 was the first signer of the Constitution, and was later, briefly the Governor of Georgia.

And it goes without saying that Button Gwinnett, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, George Washington, and others in their era, had no idea about antibiotics; they had no inkling that magnetic fields could peer deeply inside the human body to detect disorder; that dental implants and multi-organ transplants would exist; or that we would send a telescope to orbit our planet and peer deeply into the cosmos to see star systems hundreds of billions of light-years away -and- then replace it with an even better, significantly improved, more perfect one to see into the edges of the time -and- send a satellite hurtling toward the sun to learn more about the blazing fiery hydrogen fusion orb which is the center of our universe.

Artist’s 2009 rendering of the James Webb Space Telescope, which will replace the Hubble Space Telescope.

None of those things and more which we daily take for granted – such as GPS on smartphones – could have ever been imagined by our Founding Fathers… or their mothers, or children, and never were.

We are as different, and our needs are as immensely diverse from our nation’s founders as night is from day, and there is no reason why we should not “update” our government according to the manner for which it is prescribed.

In 2019, we have more patents, more copyrights, more inventions, more discoveries, more science, more creative works of myriad kind, and – of course – many, many, many, more people. Many!

If it was anything, it was but a pipe dream that one day, unmanned remote control aircraft could be silently flown around the world, eavesdrop on conversations, take pictures in the dark to deploy guided missiles, drop bombs, and kill people… and that we, on the opposite side of the globe, could watch it unfold live, as it happened, as if it were macabre modern gladiatorial entertainment.

Portrait of Robert Boyle (1627-1691), by German painter John Kerseboom (d.1708), which is publicly displayed at Gawthorpe Hall, in England.

In the age and era of the founding of our nation, the concept of microscopy and the cell theory was relatively new. Robert Hooke, considered the “father of microscopy” had just discovered cells in 1665, and Robert Boyle (Boyle’s Law) were contemporaries in 1662, while Sir Isaac Newton died in 1727 – a mere 60 years before our Constitution was written.

Benjamin Franklin didn’t publish his most famous experiment which used lightning and a kite to prove that lightning was electricity until 1750; Orville and Wilbur Wright didn’t get off the ground at Kitty Hawk until 1903; Alexander Fleming discovered the first antibiotic – penicillin – in 1928; and the planet Pluto wasn’t discovered until 1930!

We’re talking about 242 years ago, “when giants and dinosaurs roamed the Earth.”

In a way, our nation’s founders were giants, and yet, in another way, they were dinosaurs who could fathom no idea – not even a minuscule hint – and because of it, were literally clueless about the greatness that America would become.

To give them their due, however, their curiosity and liberality served them well then, and it serves us well now. Our form of government is, in the history of humanity, among the shortest-lived, but the most remarkable, and successful.

Congressional Coffee Hour (Senate). 2 May 1961, Blue Room, White House, Washington, D.C.; L-R: Senator Quentin Northrup Burdick-D, North Dakota (1908-1992); Senator Wayne Lyman Morse-D, Oregon (1900-1974); President John Fitzgerald Kennedy-D (1917-1963); Senator Thomas Henry Kuchel-R, California (1910-1994); Senator Hubert Horatio Humphrey-D, Minnesota (1911-1978); Senator Roman Lee Hruska-R, Nebraska (1904-1999); From the JFK Library; Photographer: Robert LeRoy Knudsen, (1929-1989)

In a sense, though while Greeks and Romans were inspirations, Americans perfected the three-branch bicameral democratic republic form of government. And we’re still perfecting it today. It’s part and parcel of that “in order to form a more perfect union” thing.

So, now it comes time to mention the obvious: While some loudly say government is too large, others say it is way too small to be either efficient or effective. I am among those in the latter camp, and will show and explain why as follows.

First, it’s preposterously absurd to imagine that a foundling nation with a total population which was then less than half the size that New York City is now, would, could, or should have a smaller government as it grew and matured. In the same way, no one wears the clothes they did as a 10-year-old child, and as adults, they purchase and/or make larger garments to suit their needs and wants. Similarly, no one should expect government to decrease in size.

More than anything, these matters speak directly to efficiency and effectiveness of government, which our nation’s founders also understood very well, which is also why

Citizens United Ruling Violates Equal Protection Clause

Nick Hanauer, a multi-billionaire about whom few have likely heard, authored a highly publicized article not too long ago warning about wealth inequity. Increasingly, the wealthy are realizing that a strategy of cutting taxes upon the wealthy and their corporations is not a recipe for American success, precisely for the reason that it adversely affects economic infrastructure, and jobs, among other damages.

However, one needn’t be wealthy to realize and understand that money, and the unreasonable desire for it known as avarice (an extreme form of greed), and the unwieldy power that accompanies it, are corrupting influences in any nation, and particularly in our United States because of SCOTUS ruling in the 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision which

Answering @chrkirk: Electoral College’s Voting Problems Violates Equal Protection Clause

How Much Is Your Vote Worth?
From: New York Times Op-Chart November 2, 2008
This map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents.
Source: The United States Election Project at George Mason University.

Having read the article How Powerful Is Your Vote? by Chris Kirk several times, I still disagree with it. The article’s premise is that by using the Electoral College (EC) system, the votes cast in less populated states are somehow “more powerful” than those in more populated states. To posit such an assertion is to demonstrate a wholesale lack of understanding of the system. That is not to say the EC system is perfect, nor that changes to it are not needed; rather, it only acknowledges the author’s fundamentally deep misunderstanding of the manner in which the system is established, and a virtually wholesale ignorance of the Constitution.

Apparently, as evidenced by the graphic seen herein, others are similarly misguided. However, one would expect more from George Mason University. Much more, in fact. However, to understand – as I mention later – the bias is strictly and exclusively from including 2 Senators in the number of Electors. Dr. Mark Newman, PhD, who is the Anatol Rapoport Distinguished University Professor of Physics in the Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan correctly writes that “The electors are apportioned among the states roughly according to population, as measured by the census, but with a small but deliberate bias in favor of less populous states.”

According to the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 & 3, Electoral Votes in each state are equal to

#Abortion Is A #Religious Matter

Your remark “in God we trust” has validated what I wrote, which is that “Abortion is a religious matter. It is NOT one for the government.”

On a strictly PERSONAL RELIGIOUS level, I oppose abortion. And yet, as a strictly legal, Constitutional matter, I acknowledge that our United States Supreme Court has decided that we the people have the FREEDOM to make deeply personal decisions for ourselves, WITHOUT governmental interference.

Imagine, if you can, if the government told you that you must have a tubal ligation, or that you must have a hysterectomy… or, for a man, that he must have a vasectomy, or an orchidectomy (surgical removal of the testicles) so that they could no longer reproduce. Would you like that? Would you think that would be good? What if your neighbor could

I had a Late Term #Abortion.

I HAD A LATE TERM ABORTION.
IT IS NOTHING LIKE DESCRIBED BY TRUMP.
PLEASE DON’T BASE YOUR VOTE ON THE FEAR MONGERING HE IS DOING.
PLEASE READ MY EXPERIENCE:

I had to have a late term abortion. It was the worst moment in my life. What made it even worse was the State of Utah had made it illegal. I had one dead twin. The other had severe Spina Bifida, and would only have lived with life support, in great pain, for a few days.

by Alyson Draper
October 19 at 8:46pm · Midway, UT
used with permission

I lay on the hospital floor, bawling hysterically, for twelve hours, waiting for an ethics committee of the health care corporation to

Late Term #Abortion #Politics On #DebateNight

A few thoughts on a Presidential Debate topic by Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, with candidates Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) from the third, and final debate held last night at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Wednesday, 19 October 2016:

1.) Tweet from Dr. Jen Gunter, MD: “There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion – I’m a doctor who trained in late term abortions”
https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/788912646330257408

2.) A portion of her blog entry (linked herein) on the topic from the Debate states: “Trump’s statement, as incorrect as it may be, supports the fallacy of the due-date abortion. It is a common anti-choice narrative that

There’s Much More Than Meets The Eye With Pro-Life Pro-Choice Stances

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control, abortions are performed at a significantly higher rate in racial/ethnic minority communities (Negro & Hispanic) than in the White/Anglo majority community.

Having read an item on the website Black Community News about legislation sponsored by Ohio State Representative Bill Patmon (D, 10th House District, Cleveland) that would “block state funding” to Planned Parenthood, I thought it important to share some notes, observations and thoughts on the topic presented therein.

The legislation of which he is author and principle sponsor, HB 294, is “To enact section 3701.034 of the Revised Code to require the Department of Health to ensure that state funds and certain federal funds are not used either to perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract or affiliate with any entity that performs or promotes elective abortions.”

The Columbus Dispatch reported Wednesday July 29, 2015 5:33 AM on a pro-life event at the Ohio state capitol and wrote that

Canadian Born Texas Senator Ted Cruz: Eligible, Or Not For U.S. President? Experts: SCOTUS Ruling Required.

Born in Canada to a Cuban father & American mother, Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship only last year (2014).

ref: http://www.scribd.com/doc/229039536/Canadian-Renunciation-Letter

To be certain, as a graduate of Princeton undergrad & Harvard Law, Ted Cruz is no dummy. So for him to assert he didn’t know he was a Canadian citizen is not merely disingenuous, it’s fallacious on its face. Plainly put, it’s a blatant lie.

ref: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/politics/ted-cruz-canada-citizenship/
ref: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-ted-cruz-born-a-citizen-of-canada-under-the-countrys-immigration-rules.ece

U.S. Department of State circular on United States citizenship

The U.S. Department of State specifically writes that citizenship via “jus sanguinis,” i.e., by bloodline, “is not

More Government Cheese Bhurger, sir? Welfare Cattle Ranching: Digging into the Cliven Bundy ordeal

I’m not a funnyman like Jon Stewart of the Comedy Channel.
However, Stewart does a good job – indeed, an excellent job – of excoriating right-wing zealot Sean Hannity over his inconsistencies of argument in support of Cliven Bundy… the man who knows everything about the Negro.
In fact, Stewart does a damn fine job… in a manner that perfectly shines a light upon Mr. Hannity’s hypocrisy.

If you’d like to take a few minutes to be entertained and educated, here’s the URL for the episode in which Stewart skewers Hannity.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/ig155d/april-21–2014—gina-mccarthy

And, if you’re kinda’ froggy, and like to get the facts (just the facts, ma’am… just the facts), here’s some research I performed for my benefit.
Yeah.
I’m selfish like that.
I didn’t do it for anyone else but me.

Enjoy!

***

At issue is Cliven Bundy’s claim to land use – not ownership.

The area in question is 150 square miles in the 500,000 acre Gold Butte area along the Virgin River in Nevada.

Bundy claims that his family “homesteaded” that land since 1877, and by virtue of that claim, unlimited right of use to the land belongs to him.

In essence, Bundy claims a right to graze the land where he has allowed his cattle to roam – and therefore, because his cattle have been there, he claims unlimited use of the land belongs to him, although he cannot produce any document demonstrating any essence or component of such claim, nor of ownership – such as a survey, easement, bill of sale, quitclaim deed, bills for taxes, or taxes paid.

For over 20 years, Bundy has allowed his cattle to graze on that tract of Federal land – land to which he has no ownership, deed or right of use – and since 1993 has ceased paying grazing fees, which, by his own admission, is in arrears at least $300,000.

Here’s a partial time line to the current date which highlights significant events in the ordeal.
1973
■ Cliven Bundy pays grazing fees to the BLM for the next 20 years.
1993
■ The BLM modifies Bundy’s grazing permit by reducing the size allowed for his herd to 150 and restricts where his cattle can graze in the Gold Butte area. He refuses the permit and stops paying grazing fees. The BLM cancels his permit.

American Entitlement Culture

Recently, I happened across an item which read “When they analyze the demise of western society due to the entitlement epidemic, it’ll trace back to giving kids awards just for showing up.”

Of course, it can sometimes be difficult to discern sarcasm when reading, and I rather suspect there is at least a smidgen of sarcasm in that brief remark.

Sarcasm, of course, can, and is often used to convey a truth, or truths about numerous subjects, and is a teaching tool, as well.

Because I often use dictionaries to aid my understanding, I chose to look up the definition of the word “entitlement.” Here’s what I found:
As a verb, to “entitle” is to give someone a legal right, or a just claim to receive or do something.

For example, in the United States, the First Amendment is an entitlement to

Reasoned Debate: Our Second Amendment Rights & Preventing Firearm Violence

Alabama State House GOP “Dare Defend Our Rights” gun logo, from the FaceBook page of Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn

Recently in another Social Media forum, a long-time friend had posted a link to a site operated for the Alabama State House GOP faction, which is a so-called “supermajority” in that state’s elected legislative body. That site may be found here: http://ALHouseGOP.com/WeDareDefend/.

Perceiving that that those political ideologues were very likely drumming up support for their positions based upon pure emotion and fear, rather than reasoned, rational and informed debate, I initially responded by quickly writing a somewhat sarcastic response, precisely worded to give pause for thought. My initial response elicited a query, to which I delightfully replied more eruditely.

The exchange as it exists presently, now follows.

• Me: Yeah. Alabama was wrong on their right to segregation and their right to deny civil rights, too.

• Friend: So, do you support the

Happy 225th Anniversary, America!

As of Noon today – Monday, September 17, 2012 – according to the United States Census Bureau, the population of the nation will exceed 314,395,013.

Today is the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

September 17 is recognized as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day to commemorate the creation and signing of the supreme law of the land and to honor and celebrate the privileges and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship for both native-born and naturalized citizens. Federal law requires that all schools receiving federal funds hold an educational program for their students on September 17 of each year.

On Sept. 17, 1987, the Census Bureau estimated the U.S. population was

Michelle Obama fires up America with Keynote Speech to Democratic faithful in Charlotte

Not only was her speech more well received than Republican Ann Romney‘s, but that one night of the DNC was more enthusiastic – i.e., FIRED UP – than was the entire RNC event in Tampa.

It was EXCITING to know that the Average American does NOT want to return to the “Bad Old Days” of bad policy as they experienced under the Bush II administration, which was responsible for the bail-out called TARP, starting wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, outsourcing American jobs, increasing the size of government, cutting taxes on the wealthy, the so-called “doughnut hole” in the Medicare prescription program (written by BIG PHARMA), and a whole lotta’ other genuinely bad things.

It was EXCITING to know that personal freedom – religious, private, healthcare – is an instrumental part of the Democratic Platform, as opposed to the RNC which supports… going back via the legislative time machine to the 1800’s, when child labor was common, women couldn’t vote, any non-white person was a second-class non-citizen & couldn’t vote, etc.

—

Transcript: Michelle Obama’s Democratic Convention Speech

September 4, 2012

Below is the full transcript, as prepared for delivery, of First Lady Michelle Obama‘s speech to the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night.

Thank you so much, Elaine…we are so grateful for your family‘s service and sacrifice…and we will always have your back.

Over the past few years as First Lady, I have had the extraordinary privilege of traveling all across this country. And everywhere I’ve gone, in the people I’ve met, and the stories I’ve heard, I have seen the very best of the American spirit.

I have seen it in the incredible kindness and warmth that people have shown me and my family, especially our girls.

I’ve seen it in teachers in a near-bankrupt school district who vowed to keep teaching without pay.

I’ve seen it in people who become heroes at a moment’s notice, diving into harm’s way to save others…flying across the country to put out a fire…driving for hours to bail out a flooded town.

And I’ve seen it in our men and women in uniform and our proud military families…in wounded warriors who tell me they’re not just going to walk again, they’re going to run, and they’re going to run marathons…in the young man blinded by a bomb in Afghanistan who said, simply, “…I’d give my eyes 100 times again to have the chance to do what I have done and what I can still do.”

Every day, the people I meet inspire me…every day, they make me proud…every day they remind me how blessed we are to live in the greatest nation on earth.

Serving as your First Lady is an honor and a privilege…but back when we first came together four years ago, I still had some concerns about this journey we’d begun.

While I believed deeply in my husband’s vision for this country…and I was certain he would make an extraordinary President…like any mother, I was worried about what it would mean for our girls if he got that chance.

How would we keep them grounded under the glare of the national spotlight?

How would they

A: Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry Q: Who’ll be crowned religious king, or queen of Iowa?

“We have determined that Michele Bachmann is Biblically qualified to be the president, to be a leader. She is capable. She is trustworthy. She fears God and she hates dishonest gain.”
– Danny Carroll, former Iowa State Representative, former board member, now lobbyist for The Family Leader at the Iowa statehouse

There you have it folks.

First, we have Constitutional qualification,

Continuing Stubborn Ignorance

Having recently read this Op/Ed columnist’s article, I found the author’s remarks spot-on… so much so, that I am sharing them here for your benefit. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

Within the past decade, I’ve written three columns titled “Deception 101,” “Stubborn Ignorance,” and “Exploiting Public Ignorance,” all explaining which branch of the federal government has taxing and spending authority. How can academics, politicians, news media people and ordinary citizens get away with statements such as “Reagan’s budget deficits,” “Clinton’s budget surplus,” “Bush’s budget deficits and tax cuts” or “Obama’s tax increases”? Which branch of government has taxing and spending authority is not a matter of rocket science, but people continue to make these statements. The only explanation that I come up with is incurable ignorance, willful deception or just plain stupidity; if there’s another answer, I would like to hear it.

Let’s look at the facts. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

The Last Fair Deal Gone Down: Robert Johnson, Racism and Abortion

Late American Blues guitarist/singer/songwriter Robert Johnson, a Negro, died at the tender young age of 27, in 1938. There are less than 50 recordings of his, of which historians are aware. Among musicologists, researchers and others, his performances are considered treasures and remain the subject of great debate, even today.

If Robert Johnson’s mother were alive today, living in New York City and in the prime of her childbearing years, the flower of her youth, and were to become pregnant with him today…

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance

Does history repeat itself?

Before this article was published, I was engaged in conversation with a friend on a subject wholly unrelated to this topic. As I listened to him he remarked, “Heck, when you join the Army, if your teeth need fixing, they’ll fix ’em. If you need glasses, they’ll put glasses on you. If you need any kind of healthcare, they’ll fix you up. The reason the Army provides healthcare is because they understand they’ll get a better quality soldier.”

Interestingly, neither my friend nor his family have a military background.

By extension, I wonder… how much more productive could the American worker be if they didn’t have to be concerned about their and their family’s health and healthcare? And then, if we completely ignore “lifestyle” related health issues. i.e., those associated with smoking or obesity, there are other chronic conditions, including heart disease, hypertension, COPD, etc., that significantly adversely affect the lives of families.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
Jan. 17 2011 – 9:08 pm

Rick Ungar
The Policy Page

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read –

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS – http://www.scribd.com/doc/39344827/State-of-Florida-v-United-States-Dept-of-HHS –

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed

House GOP Freshmen Miss Oath, Violate Constitution by Voting

What is it with Republicans and oaths? Apparently, they can’t figure it out. Even the arrogant Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t get the Oath of Office for the Presidency down pat, and screwed up the swearing in of President Obama on Inauguration Day. What a F*ing IDIOT!

Hey… it’s Constitutional if we say it is!

Arrogant Republican Bastards Whoring for Dollars

Yesterday Republicans had to stop business in the House of Representative after it was discovered two of their members had cast votes without taking the oath of office. Representatives Mike Fitzpatrick R-PA and Pete Sessions R-TX both were gone at a fundraising event while the oath of office was administered.

In Memory on Memorial Day

My Great-Grandfather Michael emigrated from Ireland to the United States, and enlisted in the Union Army in Corinth, MS, 1862, and served the United States of America in the First Alabama Cavalry as a farrier. For more history on Union soldiers from the South, and the 1st Alabama Cavalry United States Volunteers, specifically, please see: http://www.1stAlabamaCavalryUSV.com

Age: 38
Birthplace: Langford, Ireland
Rank at enlistment: Private
Rank at discharge: Corporal
Company Assignment: C

12/6/1862  Enlisted, Corinth, MS
12/22/1862  Mustered In, Corinth, MS
12/17/1863 Mustered Out, Memphis, TN

My Great Grandfather, my father – a Korean War veteran of the Navy

A Short History of “Privacy” in American Jurisprudence

Privacy

[Note: This entry was originally entitled “Privacy,” and was transferred to this site, having previously been posted by me on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 2:57pm.]

“Privacy” is a relatively new term in American jurisprudence, and public dialogue. Former US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, an AL native, wrote against “privacy” in his dissent in Griswold v Connecticut.

The development of our right to privacy emerged, interestingly enough, from Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court Case which challenged the state’s 1879 criminalizing of a married couple’s use of contraceptive devices. Appellants were the

Taxed Enough Already? Not hardly, says new report.

So-called “tea” partiers may be disappointed

The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a non-partisan policy analysis and collaborative effort of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, both Washington, D.C. think-tanks, recently reported that 47% of all Americans will not pay income tax for the 2009 tax year.

President Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credits, and his American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) have further reduced income tax burdens on Americans.

Because of his initiatives, more than half of all elderly households, families with children, and other Americans will pay no income tax this year. More than 75% of married couples and single heads of households with income between $30,000 – 40,000 will pay no income tax. And more than 90% of all households with children will have no tax liability this year.

The Tax Policy Center estimated President Obama’s policies significantly lowered the tax burden on average Americans,

“Hello, I’m from the Census Bureau, and we need to see your credit cards.”

Apparently, some “Gypsies, tramps and thieves” have begun scamming area residents in advance of the U.S. Census. In one telephone conversation, a local resident, thinking she had answered official U.S. Census documents, complained that “this year, they were asking all kinds of questions about my assets.”

The Birmingham News has reported that