I may not put as many posts into this as I should and I don’t have a huge audience but, I do have a moderated system.
Few people seem to find a reason to share comments but I don’t intend to let in a bunch of spam just to have increased traffic.
Just as an example. I recently deleted a comment made about my post titled “A Nation of Laws”. For some reason, the nitwit who left the add seemed to think that a cure for ED *Erectile Dysfunction” had something to do with the post. I could not see it, and so it is gone.
I would love to hear from people who would like to have a dialogue about the various subjects, but not backdoor adds having nothing to do with the topic.
I was reading about the trouble that President Trump recently had while coloring a U. S. Flag, while he was visiting some school children.
In one picture there is a puzzled looking Trump staring at the drawing of the other children and seeing that something was wrong.
Some have suggested that he was confused and trying to color the Russian flag. I don’t know about that but, I kind of wonder how he did not know what the flag he wrapped himself in looks like. After all, all he really had to do was look down at the little lapel pin he so proudly wears to see what it looks like.
It might be a good thing that his show was “The Apprentice” rather than “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader”.
On my first thought, I decided that this was a rather straightforward idea: if you have nothing to fear why go through all the trouble to make yourself look guilty?
Anybody around at the time of Watergate, or who remembers what that was, will remember the night that President Richard Nixon fired a bunch of the Watergate prosecutors, and how that made him look even guiltier than that the missing 18 minutes in the White House Tapes, the ones where he recorded everything that was said in his office. We don’t know, for sure, what was on those 18 minutes, and the White House said the erasure was an accident. The problem with that came out when it was shown that for the secretary to have erased those tape she would have had to have been a contortionists who could hold that pose for the entire 18 minutes. Not likely.
Maybe the overall problem was, as Nixon would say later, that he allowed an “atmosphere” into the White House that allowed his staff to believe he would support them, or maybe he was just a crook.
The upshot of all this was that taken together, the tapes, the missing part of the tape, the firing itself, and the number of staff members who went to jail it was plain to the world that he just headed off the impeachment with his resignation.
There might have been nothing more to it than over-enthusiastic staff playing at being spies, or it could be that Nixon himself was behind it, we can but conjecture as the White House spent so much time stonewalling the whole thing.
My point is, even if there were no collusion with the Russians, President Trump seems to be working hard in an effort to make us think there is something to the idea.
So what if a number of his aids are under investigation or have pleaded guilty to charges, or even his threats to derail the entire investigation, right now you can’t say yes, or no, to the idea.
What I suggest is simple. I would like President Trump to come out in supporting the overall search for the truth. It might be hard to prove there was no collusion as it is often hard to prove something did not happen.
I can see where he might be concerned with the possibility of an impeachment proceeding taking place, as they do not use the same rules of law as found in a real court and an impeachment might just be politically motivated, in which case maybe he can get it done while the Republicans still hold Congress? At least those who decide they want to go on record as supporting the Donald.
I am not sure if the double jeopardy applies to Congress, they might even try again, if a first attempt fails, after the mid-terms.
We might even be able to sneak a few people into the White House staff who have at least some idea what they are doing?
That Joe Guy.
P.S. In the interest of full disclosure I would like to state that in 2016 I voted for the Libertarian Candidate.
No.. For thousands of years marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman… and sexual conduct between person’s of the same sex was viewed as a “perversion” with practitioners of same being considered “perverts”.
Most state laws, even those not related to marriage, are based on “common law” which is a sort of unwritten law. These unwritten laws were adopted over the years as a way to keep order in a society. While many of these laws would fall in line with the “10 Commandments” the reason had more to do with the keeping of order, rather than a religious proscription.. This is why many none Christian countries had laws similar to those in Christian countries, as society understood that certain acts would conflict with the common good, and order, of a properly working society. Murder, robbery, rape, theft, and things such as libel were know to creat disorder and were therefore prohibited. The family, being important to the structure of society, was proscribed as being between a man and a woman, with added prohibitions against such things as being married to more than one spouse, marriage to certain blood relatives, and being married to a spouse under a certain age. As for the last two the degree of prohibition varied by area.
In the United States there are a number of law that prohibit the practice of sodomy, which would seem to invalidate homosexual marriage, as well as incest, which had resulted in that prohibition.
The United States Supreme Court seems to be about to decide if the marriage of homosexuals in a constitutional right, or not. Not being a constitutional scholar I don’t see the connection but, I can see the possibility of them striking down the bans against the marriage of homosexuals, which leads me to wonder how long it will be before they also strike down the other prohibitions.
A lot of the conversation has to do with what people think about homosexuals, Are they really a perversion that society must be protected against? I don’t know though I would have to go with the idea that they are not the norm, and to allow them to marry would help to diminish the concept, and purpose, of marriage.
I am reminded of an old episode of the TV show “West Wing” where several White House staffer were holding a discussion with several mid range military offices on what the President stance on this subject of “Gays” in the military would be. At one point one of the staffers, makes that statement that “the President, as Commander n Chief of the Armed Forces can say that they can stay, and that is “it””. The Military staffer points out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice still prohibits sodomy and that since that is a law passed by congress it doesn’t really matter what the President says, it is still illegal conduct. The UCMJ also prohibits adultery.
Could the Supreme Court decide in favor of homosexual/Gay marriage? Yes, it is possible. What the constitution says is often a reflection of the Justices views and might have little to do with what the Constitution says. Look at Justice Sotomayor who made the statement during her confirmation hearings, which she later took back, that she would bring her “hispanic viewpoint” to the Supreme Court. This is a sure indicator that she considers her viewpoint to be more important than what the Constitution actually says… and she has voted with the Liberal block ever since… All the Justices do is make the Constitution say what they want it to. So the question is : are there enough Justices on the Supreme Court who understand that society, and the institution of marriage, must have a stable framework, or are there enough Justices who feel that marriage is just another legally recognized relationship that can be molded to fit their view?
In the last couple of years, since the financial crash of 2008, I keep coming to the conclusion that, yes it was the bankers.
Sure the Flippers were making money by inflating the value of property, so they could resell it at the inflated prices. Sure there were appraisers who verified that the inflated prices were normal while getting money from both sides. Sure the banks knew, for some time, that this was going on but, the housing market was flush so, who would suspect that all these worthless mortgages, the ones that the banks bundled up and sold to other financial organizations, would one day deflate and cause a vacuum that would reach around the world.
Not the bankers, who had made money hand over fist. They tied to get all of their loans back by upping the rates on other people’s loans, and in some cases causing the failure of more mortgages. As the tremor spread, and the bankers found their landscape riddles with sinkhole mortgages, the wanted to get the holes filled. They could not, of course, go the the very people they were now foreclosing on so, they went to the people they had helped put into office… The Politicians. The controllers of the Federal money mill.
There was an argument about whether to give them a bailout, or not. It soon became apparent that to deny them the money would only hurt the people who worked for these organizations, and not the people who made the disaster. It was then decided to give the money to those institutions that were “too big to fail”. This did not mean that they could not fail, as the were indeed falling on their faces, it only meant that their failure would create even more havoc on the financial world.
A couple of months after this all started to come apart there was an article in the Sarasota Herald, the same paper that had warned us about flipping, and some the the people who had been doing it, telling about an interview with a woman who worked for the banks. It seemed that her job was to give seminars to local law enforcement and train them about how to detect people who were trying to defraud the banks. Yes, they already knew there was fraud afoot but, since they were making money off of this fraud, they did not care. It was only when it became apparent that this fraudulent inflating of the property prices was now jabbing them in the butt that they took notice..
They got some of the holes filled in, with the bailout money, but that was not quite all of the holes. They then started mass foreclosures as there were more people now, having lost their jobs as their companies went out of business due to the collapse cause by the banks, who could not pay their mortgages…
One of the results was that they could not foreclose fast enough, some people said that the faster the homes were seized and resold the faster the market would recover, so the banks, and their agents, started what has been called “robo signers” where the NUMEROUS Vice-Presidents at the bank, some of whom just started working there, were verifying large numbers of foreclose documents. Document they indicated were correct, and accurate. This in spit of the admissions, by some of the signers, that they signed so many of them that the had little, or not chance, to either verify the information or even understand it.
These foreclosures, and the fraudulent filings, got so bad that some of the Judges began to notice, and some even reacted by slowing the rate of foreclosures. Since then the Sarasota Harald has written that those caught with fraudulent information, instead of getting censured and their case dismissed with prejudice, were told to go back and refill. Lets say to student, the banker and the student, both got caught cheating on a test… They both swore that their answers were accurate and their own but, the teacher discovered that they had both made up their answers, in the hope the teacher would have so many test that he would not pay attention to theirs. The regular student gets a failure grade and a trip to the office while the banker gets told to re-write his test minus the false answers.
Back to the falsified information inserted into court documents… Some of the banks have gotten fines for this… though probably not many… So what do the do? They list the fines as “expense of doing business” and take it off the taxes, so the taxpayer is now bailing them out AGAIN.
Is there any surprise that Jesus tossed the “money changers” out of the church, or that he would feel that way about them? NO..
Most of us have to take responsibility for out actions but, if you are a banker, who gives large campaign contributions, not so much..
If the average person where to do what the bankers have done he would be hounded into jail. If anything happens to the average banker, such as a fine, he just gets the taxpayer to cover it when he takes it off his taxes as an “expense of doing business”.
The small business man who drives his company into the ground loses everything while the banker just gets the taxpayers to bail him out and his company gives him a big bonus…
Why is it only the small guy who has to be responsible?