Foreseeing the Future

-->

I am not a fortune teller nor do I have a crystal ball, but seeing this future isn’t hard or even profound.  The House of Representatives, and more exactly the Democratic Party majority, crossed a line yesterday that will come back to haunt them in the not too distant future. 

I’m not talking about the upcoming elections in 2020, although the thought of them losing the majority seems a reasonable one based on the nature of the average American not living in a big city or at the end of the pollsters questioning.  I’m talking about the next time there is a President from the Democratic party, and the GOP has a majority in the lower chamber.  If you think impeachment won’t be the principal topic for the House you should consider this House vote as a new (very low) benchmark for what the majority party can ram through the now divided body.

I can certainly understand if you want to disagree with me, but I would cite in my defense the decisions made when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, and Harry Reed was spending all his time protecting his President and trying to get judges appointed to the bench.  The animosity was such that thoughts of bi-partisan cooperation disappeared.  Senators would put holds on appointments until their pet projects were addressed, or their pet peeves resolved.  At the end of the day, the Senate Majority leader decided to throw out 200-years of tradition in what was referred to as the “Nuclear Option.”

He eliminated the individual Senators' right to filibuster judicial appointments and the requirement for confirmation approval to have a supermajority of 60 votes.  Of course, the minority party was outraged and warned that changing the rules would have dire consequences.  Now, as the Democrats in the Senate are powerless to stop the steamroller of judicial appointments by the GOP I, for one, have very little sympathy.

Each time one party or the other seeks to short-circuit the established political processes to achieve some short-term gain they usually live to regret the decision.  This partisan impeachment will be no different.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

-->

Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the new legal standard for the Democratic party; unless, of course, it is a Democrat being accused.  Don’t get me wrong, the President has his flaws, (and they are many), but the opposition’s rage over him beating their princess in 2016 has all but destroyed the foundational belief in the rule of law that is supposed to serve as the glue to hold the nation together.

I guess since most politicians are now lawyers that old truth about lawyers (and politicians) should be routinely posted anytime one of them is talking.  If the media were honest and neutral it would be run on a chyron (that little scrolling bar at the bottom of a TV screen) every time a politician gets his sound-bite broadcast. 

“HOW DO YOU KNOW A LAWYER/POLITICIAN IS LYING?  -- THEIR LIPS ARE MOVING.”

After three years of hearing how President Trump a) colluded with the Russians to steal the election, b) colluded with the Ukrainians to steal the election, c) is viewed as a fool by other world leaders, d) is a mean and uncaring man, d e) blackmailed the Ukrainians into digging up dirt on the Biden family, the house settled on two pretty unremarkable and incredibly political charges.  Both based solely on partisan political opinion.

Of course, the outcome of this political circus is pre-ordained so in the end it is just so much theater to appease the masses and perhaps divert attention away from the critical business of the state where polarization makes the accomplishment of productive change unlikely.  In the end, with a partisan “trial” in the Senate where the outcome is known, we will return to the status quo – where the opposition will paint the President is guilty of all kinds of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” since he didn’t “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” he is innocent.

But for us, the average citizen, we should be deeply concerned that the government and ultimately the judicial system will now embrace this new standard and we will abolish the protections of the Bill of Rights.  We’ve seen evidence of how the powerful have attempted to bypass the protections in the past.  Usually in large Democratic-controlled cities with significant crime rates.  For example, the DNC is now decrying their new Presidential candidate’s decision, as Mayor of New York City, to have the police department “stop and frisk” people they thought were likely of doing something illegal.  In practice, this meant they routinely stopped African-Americans, Hispanics, and other groups they found suspect.  I assume they rarely, if ever, stopped well-dressed white business people because the political fallout would have been immediate.

Remember, under the new rules we remain Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

In this Age of Outrage, Does the Law Matter Anymore?

The New York State Attorney General sued the ExxonMobil Oil Company (hereafter referred to as Exxon) in State Court on a securities fraud charge based on what it claimed was a misrepresentation of Exxon’s risk to investors because the NY AG thought the company didn’t correctly represent the dangers of climate change and the company’s liability for that change.

At the end of the trial the judge ruled that even with the lower standards of proof required for a securities fraud case, the AG had failed to prove that Exxon had broken any laws.  In its defense, Exxon attorneys noted that the case was a concerted effort by the “anti-fossil” fuel advocates (supported by the New York AG) to destroy the reputation of the giant oil company.

That spurs this question.  In this age of emotion where opinion seems to outweigh facts are we really concerned about the law?

We have politicians filling social media with outrage about Administration policies that reflect support for the current laws.  These would be the same politicians who are in a position to change the law if they could focus on cooperation rather than attack.  If we don’t like a law we used to change it.  Take, for example, prohibition.  We were all up in arms about the devil’s brew and so condemned the production and consumption of it by changing our Constitution.  It didn’t take but a few years to realize that was a pretty stupid idea so we undid the change.

It doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.  It is much easier to appeal to the mob, so at what point do we just abandon the law and revert back to the way life was before we had laws?

It's a Cunundrum

If a member of the U.S. Armed Forces (AKA "The Military") has a gun for personal use (e.g. hunting or self-protection) doesn't that make that gun a "military-grade weapon" which should be banned because the left has said no one needs a military-grade weapon.  Wouldn't the liberal states, which have passed severe gun laws confiscate said military-grade weapon?

Moving On...

So, the House impeachment inquisition is moving on -- to its Judiciary Committee and I assume the outcome of their hearings is already pre-determined, as evidenced by the comments of the Speaker this week.  It’s nice to know as a Catholic, one who believes in the killing of the unborn by the way, she is incapable of hate and this is all moving forward to save the Republic.  Her invocation of faith reminds me of the last great Catholic inquisition where those who didn’t agree with the church were tortured and killed for their own good and to save their souls.

Just as in the Intelligence Committee hearings the opening witnesses offered opinions, for that is all “legal experts” can offer.  Not one of the witnesses has first-hand knowledge of the “high crime” that will result in the bills of impeachment but were called to supposedly shed some light on the severity of the allegations or the intent of the founders in allowing for impeachment.  The fact most of them have been part of the “Resistance” movement since the election should in no way influence their expertise.

Listening to excerpts of the testimony I think I am on safe ground in saying bribery will be one of the charges.  They might also throw in some stuff about self-enrichment and violations of the emoluments clause even though they have failed in the courts with that charge. 

There is an interesting observation floating around, one which resonates with me.  “The bar for impeachment has been set so low we can now expect to see it used routinely, but the bar for conviction is so high it has never been reached.”  For those who would bring up Richard Nixon, I would just point out he resigned before the trial ever began.  I am pretty certain it won’t be reached in this case.

The question for us as we approach the next election is really about what form of government do we want?  Do we want what we have today where the politician’s primary concern is about destroying their political opponents, or do we want to reshape the landscape to force them to see the error of their ways?  That latter option is not likely and is perhaps impossible but if the Republic is to survive it is the only true option.  The only way to achieve the latter option is to completely reshape the Congress by voting out every incumbent and starting over with a new House and a 1/3 new Senate. Of course, the danger here is no one in the House would know how to act as a Representative and the professional staffers would be in complete control.  So maybe that’s not a viable thing either?

Oh well, I guess we’re doomed to keep living this Ground Hog Day scenario for as long as a Republican is in the White House.

Another Victim of White Billionaires

Ms. Kamela Harris has announced the end of her campaign.  Of course, the fact she is doing so poorly in the polls and does not appeal to the early primary voters has nothing to do with her or her positions.  It certainly had nothing to do with her attempt to destroy the most recent Justice to the Supreme Court, nor anything to do with her role as a prosecutor in California.  She is simply a victim of the billionaire in the race.

"My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue. I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign."