Why I think firing the Special Prosecuter would be a bad idea..


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?

 

Thank,

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.

 

Gay Marriage, is it normal?


Marriage March 2013
Marriage March 2013 (Photo credit: American Life League)

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?

We will just have to find out.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

Just an observation…


Official photographic portrait of US President...
Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I see that there is a new flap over who President Obama had picked for the presidential inauguration… It seems that his first choice, the Rev. Louie Giglio, has withdraw, very soon after he was picked..  Why you might ask?  Well it seems that, for some odd reason that may have something to do with the Bible, he thinks, or thought, that homosexuality was a SIN.

Is homosexuality a SIN?  It might be..  there have been more knowledgeable people than I who have said yes, or no.  Each groups seems to find some portion of the scriptures that seems to support their theory…

So I am going to look at this in another light..  People get their values from the Bible.  I have always been told that these values were personal values and that tolerance means that I should not try to force them onto others.

Our government, the United States of America, is set up so that our laws are, yes, based on what the personal values of the majority are.  They were not setup as supplemental material to the 10 commandments, or an enforcement of Biblical views.  If that were true we would still be closing stores on Sunday, would know what days to not eat certain meats, or still be stoning people for heresy.

What we do have is need to pass laws for the common good, for the protection of the weak, and yes, to codify certain standards that society has accepted through the ages, and yes, through the ages Marriage has been accepted as the union of one woman and one man.  Utah was told this when they wanted to become a state, which turned out to be convenient for Utah as, it was about this time that the leader of the Later Day Saints go a new message from on high that polygamy was indeed wrong, and so Utah was allowed to join the Union.

There are laws pass against thing like, murder, rape, theft, and others, that have less to do with the Bible then a need for a stable society.  Some law, based strictly on Biblical views have either been struck down, or just left unused.  Take the laws on sodomy.  When was the last time you hear of anyone getting charged with sodomy, or bring up the idea that homosexual couple would be in violation of these laws.  Some years ago, you might remember the T.V. show “West Wing” about the White House.  A couple of the junior staffer were to meet with military representatives to discus gays in the military.  When the military people pointed out that the president wasn’t really serious about this, as he had sent junior staffers, the staffers replied that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces if the President said it was alright for Gays to be in the military then it was the way it was.  The Military people pointed out that the Uniformed Code of Military Justice outlawed Sodomy, and that since the UCMJ was in fact a law passed by congress THAT is what would have to be changed before gays would be allowed in the military.

So, where are we then…  Some of the rules laid down in the Bible, now we are talking about the Christian Bible, have fallen by the wayside as Society changes.  One of the few consistent views had been the make up of the family being headed by one man and one woman.  If that is to change, then maybe we should take another look at where society gets it’s values..  Maybe, once homosexual marriages are widely accepted and the taboo against that is broken we might want to look and see if the taboo against incest still stands.  For some people the idea of a brother and sister getting married might not be as extreme as two men, or two women.

Final thought..  if an anti-gay preacher is unacceptable, then maybe we might look at having another type of priest do the benediction..  Maybe a Native American Sharman, or a Taoist Monk, or even a, wait for this…

VooDoo Priest.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

Servicewoman told DUI cost her a Christmas call from Obama | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper


 

Official photographic portrait of US President...
Image via Wikipedia

Servicewoman told DUI cost her a Christmas call from Obama | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper.

Coast Guard Petty Officer Golda Payne had been told that she would get a Christmas day phone call from the President…  As the article above states, only about 10 military people are on this list.

So, after giving an interview to the Coast Guard newspaper, imagine her surprise when she did NOT get the call..  or that the reason she did not get the call was because she had a DUI conviction in 2006, and the White House did not want the negative publicity….  “The Coast Guard has been hands down the best thing that has ever happened to me,” Payne said in an email. “It provided me structure and discipline when I needed it most.” . . .

So it  would seem that a young woman who turned her life around after a DUI arrest, and was nominated by her superiors, for this phone call,  as a result  her duties in the U. S. Coast Guard….  That is terrible.  To think that just a couple of years ago she got caught driving drunk, and then changed the course of her life for the better.  We would never want that kind of message to go out..

He is the President of the United States of America and as such he is due respect for his office but, as a person HE might be the one who did not deserve this phone call.