Ha! Now we know WHY!!!!!

Last week the State of Oklahoma passed legislation that gave direction to review all federal executive orders and determine if they were constitutional.

“The Bill would allow the Oklahoma state legislature to review each executive order and determine if the order should be given to the Oklahoma attorney general, who would determine if it is allowed under the U.S. Constitution. If the attorney general deemed an executive order unconstitutional, the bill seems to indicate the attorney general could sue for a court order invalidating the executive order.

If the attorney general decides not to take action on an order, the legislature could conduct a majority vote declaring it unconstitutional.

If the legislature invokes its option to declare an executive order unconstitutional, the statute is unclear whether the Oklahoma government would file suit or the state would ignore the order inside the state, leaving it to the federal government to enforce or try to take it to court.

Apparently, the State of Oklahoma had advance notice that President Biden is about to sign an Executive Order that would allow federal agencies to work with any state’s election board to serve as a voter registration center.

The administration describes the executive order as an “initial step” to protect voting rights — one that uses “the authority the president has to leverage federal resources to help people register to vote and provide information,” according to an administration official.

As reported by others, Republican Party members in multiple states are seeking 250 laws across the nation to suppress the vote at some level. Taking cues from the Bible, it shall be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a poor person, a person who uses a PO box, a person without a driver license, or a predominantly black community or Indian nation to register to vote or to actually vote.

So now we know why the State of Oklahoma passed such an incredibly unique law. It one fell swoop the Attormey General could declare that this Executive Order to work with states on elections is unconsitutional… and then begin to ignore the federal government.

As we have seen in this recent election, the Republican Party wishes to have sole control over who is allowed to register and, utlimately, who can actually vote in all elections.

And the Democrat Party wants to allow everyone to vote, whether or not they are citizens.

May God save us from both!

Political Kool Aid and Pisa

There’s no “good news” in politics today.

Doesn’t matter where one looks, or reads, or listens, the social and news media can only comment on strife and division. They only see life through political eyeglasses.

And the “deliverables” from the American political process are tainted or adulterated or poisoned. Legislation is full of favors and gifts and each is poisonous to the US budget and deficit.

And as for politicians, poisonous accusations abound. There is haint with the taint. (The word haint was historically used in African-American vernacular to refer to a witch-like creature seeking to chase victims to their death by exhaustion.[4][5] The accusations are exhausting!)

There is poison in the political Kool Aid. How much will you drink when you are told to drink from the glass, shut your mouth, and look the other way?

Do you drink Red Kool Aid or Blue Kool Aid? Do you lean left or right?

The Leaning Tower of Pisa leans both ways depending upon where you stand. America leans in the same way. Depending upon where one stands, America is left-leaning or right-leaning. Like the Leaning Tower of Pisa built on soft land, America was built on the soft land of people rather than the hard land of history. The Constitution is a heavy monument to the best in humankind. Unfortunately, soft people have settled over the past two hundred and fifty years and the Constitution now leans.

People wonder why the Constitution has not already toppled. Two political parties intend to bend American government to fit their agenda. The tilt of the Constitution increases relative to the observers but in no way does it straighten itself.

To prevent the Constitution from toppling, engineers are needed to strengthen it . It can never be completely upright again but the lean (from both perspectives) must stop or it will topple.

Where are the engineers and who will let them be about the business of shoring up the Constitution to offset the settling of the people?

Wherever they are, don’t let them drink the Kool Aid.

Ethical Individualism

I apologize for stealing this section from this article. But I think that this is important to be read as written rather than re-interpreted. You can find the whole article here. You will find this section begins on page 392. This is about James M. Buchanan, an economist who won the Nobel prize in 1986 . “Buchanan’s work initiated research on how politicians’ and bureaucrats’ self-interest, utility maximization, and other non-wealth-maximizing considerations affect their decision-making.

3. Ethical individualism: a society of equals and unequals. Buchanan believed that the intellectual starting point of the constitutional mentality was recognition of the moral equality of all persons. Buchanan (1975a, pp. 3–4) began The Limits of Liberty with a statement of ethical individualism: “the individualist is forced to acknowledge the mutual existence of fellow men, who also have values, and he violates his precepts at the outset when and if he begins to assign men differential weights…. Each man counts for one, and that is that”. Similarly, in The Reason of Rules, Brennan and Buchanan (1985, p. 26) explained that their approach to constitutional political economy “requires that all persons be treated as moral equivalents, as individuals equally capable of expressing evaluations among relevant options”. Importantly, given the accusations of white supremacism recently levelled against Buchanan, he always was unequivocal that all persons were morally equal and that no second class of persons counted for less than others (Buchanan 1971, 1975a, pp. 3–4, 1989a).Buchanan’s conception of consensual politics followed from the conviction that it always was wrong to impose ends, outcomes, or costs on another person without that person’s consenteven if it was thought to be for his or her own benefit. That concept meant that unanimity was an essential component of constitutional agreement because an individual could not enter into a contract involuntarily, “there is no place for majority rule or, indeed, for any rule short of unanimity” (Buchanan 1986b, p. 220; emphasis in original. See also Brennan and Buchanan 1985, Chapter 1; Buchanan 1975a, Chapter 1).The American Founding was built upon a similar belief in the moral equality of persons. The revolution was a revolt against a monarchical, undemocratic government that ruled on the basis of the inequality of persons—that some people were born to rule and other, lesser people were born to be ruled. As such, colonial governments ruled along lines of patronage and ties of privilege that went back across the Atlantic Ocean to the British monarch. The revolution was a rejection of those ideas and destruction of those relationships. The revo-lutionaries dismissed the age-old principle of aristocracy by birth and replaced it with the principle of equality—that all men were fundamentally, morally equal. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Men were deemed to be equal in their moral worth and equal in their capacity for self-government (Bailyn 1967; Pole 1978; Wood 1992).It has been argued that those words ring hollow given that the Founders did not consider African-Americans to be equal to white Americans of European descent (Magnis 1999; Mills 1997; Pateman and Mills 2007). It is important to recognize and acknowledge the exclusion of African-Americans from the society of equals envisaged by the Founders, but, 393Public Choice (2020) 183:389–403 1 3as Douglass (1852) argued powerfully, the fault was not in the principle of equality the Founders espoused, but in their failure of extend(ing) it to all Americans.The Founders’ (partially applied) belief in equality reflected the teachings of the leading Enlightenment scholars that traditional hierarchies were not natural and ordained by God, but were man-made and artificial. Wood (1992, pp. 236–40) has described the widespread belief in Lockean sensationalism during the revolutionary period—the belief that all peo-ple were born intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally identical and the differences that emerged came from the influences of their different experiences. Perhaps the most famous example was Adam Smith’s (1776, pp. 28–29) claim, published in the same year as the Declaration of Independence, that the differences between a philosopher and a street porter, “arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom and education”, so that no difference existed between the two at birth, little in infancy, but great differences gradually developed over time as they were exposed to different experiences. Not all the American revolutionaries subscribed to such a strong account of the individual as a clean slate, but its extensive currency nevertheless reflected the widely held belief in the enormous scope for human improvement if only society could be organized to the benefit of all, not just a privileged minority (Bailyn 1967; Pole 1978; Wood 1992).Buchanan (1975a, pp. 15–17), however, counselled that the belief in the moral equality of persons should not disguise the fact that people were unequal in important, non-trivial respects. Indeed, the unique moral value of each individual flowed from their differences. Buchanan (1971, p. 237) wrote that people, “differ in capacities; even at some defined point in time, inequality in endowments (human and nonhuman) is characteristic of the real world”. Furthermore, in the real world, people also differed in their possessions of property and wealth and those differences had to be taken seriously in any process of institutional design.Buchanan (1975a, p. 17) argued that the opening words of the Declaration of Independ-ence had allowed confusion to enter our understanding of the kind of equality imagined by the Founders and that Jefferson should have written, “to their creator, all men are equal”, to describe more accurately the Founders’ vision of equality. A constitutional agreement must be founded on moral equality, but must also recognize the reality of personal and mate-rial inequalities. Buchanan’s constitutional political economy required recognition of both natural equality and natural inequality (Levy and Peart 2018).Buchanan and the Founders derived very different understandings of rights from their similar conceptions of moral equality. The Declaration of Independence was a classic statement of natural rights—the belief that people possess basic human rights qua people, irrespective of whether other people or institutions recognize those rights. That conclu-sion reflects the views of the key Enlightenment thinkers who inspired the revolutionaries, notably Locke (1689), who articulated influential arguments in favor of natural rights. By contrast, Buchanan (1975a) and Brennan and Buchanan (1985, Chapter 2), rejected natural rights because their existence would imply a source of values external to individual men and women. For Buchanan (1977a, b, p. 244), “the basic Kantian notion that individual human beings are the ultimate ethical units, that persons are to be treated strictly as ends and never as means”, meant “that there are no transcendental, suprapersonal norms” —such as universal human rights. Accordingly, rights existed only when people agreed to assign rights to one another and mutually to respect those rights. The mutual assignment of rights was the process by which people left the state of nature and entered political society (Buchanan 1975a, Chapter 4; Meadowcroft 2011, pp. 50–51).While Buchanan (1971, 1975a, Chapter 1, 1979a) rejected the idea that individuals were human putty who could be moulded into perfect beings by a benevolent ruler, he 394Public Choice (2020) 183:389–4031 3nevertheless contended that the desire for self-improvement, even self-transformation, was a defining human characteristic. It was this ability to conceive the possibility that one could live a different life that drove purposeful economic and political behavior. Buchanan’s (1979a, p. 259; emphasis in original) project was driven by the idea that, “Man wants lib-erty to become the man he wants to become”. Liberty was the freedom to imagine and ulti-mately pursue different, possible alternative lives. Political and economic theories assum-ing that individual preferences were given and fixed and could be captured accurately by external agents were inimical to liberty and the ideals of self-governance and self-transfor-mation (Buchanan 1979a).Buchanan’s constitutional political economy reflected his belief that people sought to create rules to enable the pursuit of their personal, and potentially transformative, conceptions of the good life. Constitutional order freed individuals from ends imposed by others. Like the American Founders, Buchanan believed that a constitution could unleash people’s dynamic potential to change themselves and their world.

Trump Acquitted Again

Everyone predicted that former President Trump would be acquitted for the second time and he was. On a vote of 57 for impeachment and 43 against impeachment, the 2/3 majority was unmet so the President was acquitted.

The case from the House was excellent and demonstrated the truth of things: Donald Trump ginned up his base before the election and after the election. It was shown that former President Trump invited the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, QAnon, and a huge portion of simple MAGA supporters to “Stop The Steal” on January 6th. They also showed that former President Trump gave the cue for the disruption of the Electoral College ballot count and that the MAGA supporters created the chaos at the Capitol while the fringe extremists invaded the Capitol in search of Democrats, RINOs, and the VP of the United States of America to harm them. And that the President took no measures for two hours to halt the violence. He was too enthralled at what he had wrought.

Mitch McConnell , current Minority Leader of the Senate, agreed that the House managers proved the facts of their case.

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that there was no question that former President Donald Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for provoking the January 6 US Capitol insurrection despite the Senate voting to acquit Trump for inciting the riot.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-no-question-trump-is-responsible-for-provoking-riot/vi-BB1dEyet

However, as in all political battles, it’s all about giving people an excuse not to do the right thing. In this case, many of the Republicans believed that one cannot hold a trial for an impeached President who is no longer in office. This is, of course, an excuse not to do the right thing. Many Republicans used that excuse to vote against impeachment. We don’t know how many. We don’t even know if that is the excuse McConnell told himself.

And yet, the queue is now set for former President Trump to go to the Supreme Court and argue that articles of impeachment should be stricken from his record. He will say that he was found not guilty and there should not have been a trial at all.

No matter how you slice and dice this though, the video and audio evidence of President Trump’s malfeasance is on record for the world to see.

So too, is the evidence that the Republican leadership will go to extraordinary lengths to support Donald Trump. As I’ve said before, the Republican Party is no longer the Conservative Party of Gerald Ford or of George Bush I and II.

It is now a red meat party that attacks and lies and distorts the truth. Welcome to the Republican Party- New and Improved.

oooh, my personal conspiracy theory!

After reading hundreds of conspiracy theories over the years, I finally have one of my own! Yaaaaay!

So let me begin by saying this is totally made-up except for the missing Washington Times article. That part is true, or was true when I wrote my post.

Are you ready? Ok, here goes:

I wrote before about the three-hour December 28th (?) meeting in the White House with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and unnamed Republicans in which plans were made for the coming vote and rally on January 6th. I told you that the article that appeared in the Washington Weekly edition, mysteriously, cannot be found in the e-versions available on line.

https://reasonablecitizen.wordpress.com/2021/02/03/wh-plan-to-overthrow-election-foiled-by-trump-supporters/

So now this mysterious disappearance from The Washington Times has got me thinking there was more to the covert plan.

Here’s my conspiracy theory for your amusement or amazement, which ever, what ever.

The President summoned some key Republican zealots into the WH to ostensibly talk about challenging the Electoral College count by VP Pence. Once they started talking, it was clear the President wanted to talk about the rally being held on January 5th for MAGA supporters. He asked who the speakers were and made some suggestions about using Rudy Giuliani and Alex Jones to fire up the crowd.

Then the conversation turned to speculation and it isn’t clear who made the suggestion but it became a kind of joke if the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and/or the Boogaloo Bois might capture a Democrat or two and shame them on national TV. The President liked the idea and his minions began to spread the story among the followers that the President supported the idea of putting Pelosi or Schumer in handcuffs and show his base what should happen to all Democrats.

And it became obvious that if the Capitol Police were thinned out and there was a sufficient amount of delay, that a small cadre of Trumpian patriots might be able to make this happen.

And so the plan was hatched to motivate MAGA followers to storm the Capitol so a handful of patriots could hide among the crowd and then shame a few Democrats or a couple of RINOs on national TV.

That’s my personal conspiracy theory. Don’t steal it. There is nothing factual about it except for the missing Washington Times e-article written by Dave Boyer.

I have often said that you can’t make this stuff up… now I’ve learned that you actually can make this stuff up.

(sarcasm alert) But those darn Democrats have exploded the whole thing into some nefarious insurrection and then people were actually killed and, well, what was once a lark has now become something darker and more sinister.

I’m thinking I should turn this into one of those alternate Universe/portal stories where an alernate history happened. Might be good for a TV movie …or maybe a series!

Sigh…well..,making things up is fun but reality is better. I’m going back to watching the trial now. Oh, my! Who’s the idiot lawyer talking about Due Process when the impeachment hearing isn’t a criminal trial? What a maroon! Doesn’t he know that when Sen. Mitch McConnell says there will be no witness testimony that Due Process is broken into a thousand pieces?

You can’t make this stuff up! Lawyers are such idiots.

The Impeachment Article

Here is what the Constitution says:

Article 1 Section 2

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1 Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

So let’s review, the House of Representatives accuses the President of misdemeanors and high crimes and the Senate holds the trial. On January 13th, President Donald Trump was accused of inciting a riot. The Senate must hold a trial for the accusations. This is written into the Constitution. It doesn’t matter that the sitting President when the accusations are made becomes out-of-office or not three weeks later. The Senate must conduct the trial.

If convicted of the accusations, the former President cannot hold an appointed or elected position in the federal government. That is what the Constitution says…”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:…”

There is nothing ambiguous about this. Those who claim that a trial for impeachment after a President or Vice-President leaves office is unconstitutional are making a false claim. In fact, the trial affirms consensus among BOTH Houses that there is agreement the impeachment is valid or says unequivocally the claim is invalid.

Those who claim it doesn’t make a difference are short-sighted. A trial brings closure to the government and to the individual. Otherwise it will hang like a dark cloud over the person and the government.

This should be clear to everyone who can read. The dishonorable will misrepresent the words. That is what they do. Don’t be taken in.

2nd Impeachment Day 2

Very compelling footage captured former President Trump’s efforts to gin up his base. Very compelling footage of Trump using his lies to undermine the integrity of the election was evident as well as his supporters admitting they were following Trump’s orders.

If one is a Republican, how can you NOT connect the dots between Trump’s words and his followers’ actions? It is self-evident.

If you are home and not watching the impeachment, you should be.

ROFL: 1st Amendment Rights?

In a brief filed on the eve of the impeachment tria l, lawyers for the former president leveled a wide-ranging attack on the case, foreshadowing the claims they intend to present when arguments begin Tuesday on the same Senate floor that was invaded by rioters on Jan. 6.

They suggest that Trump was simply exercising his First Amendment rights when he disputed the election results and argue that he explicitly encouraged his supporters to have a peaceful protest and therefore cannot be responsible for the actions of the rioters. They say the Senate is not entitled to try Trump now that he has left office, an argument contested by even some conservative legal scholars, and they deny that the goal of the case is justice.

So let me get this straight, the President wasn’t undermining the Federal government process when he said Mike Pence should throw out the certified elections of 50 states? He was exercising his 1st Amendment right?

When the President called the Georgia Governor and wanted him to “find” 47,000 votes, the President was exercising his 1st Amendment rights? When the President conspired in a three-hour meeting in late December to weaken the police presence, whip his followers into a frenzy, and launch them towards the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral College on January 6th, the President was exercising his 1st Amendment rights?

Give me a break.

Who thinks this stuff up? Do they think everyone is an idiot?

WH Plan to overthrow election: foiled by Trump supporters

The Washington Times reports its news from a Republican perspective. It chooses its words to highlight the values of Conservatives and diminsh the values of Liberals. While it doesn’t scream like Breitbart, it is a source of Conservative and Republican news and views even if its thumb is on the scale.

Missing from the Washington Times online archives is an article written by Dave Boyer. It was printed in the December 28, 2020 National Weekly edition that is mailed to subscribers. I don’t know why it’s missing but my searches have failed to turn up a Washington Times e-version. I was able to find an e-version over at Pressreader.com

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-washington-times-weekly/20201228/281526523665558

The article reports on a WH planning session with the President, Vice President, then Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, and “several other Republicans”. I don’t know why they aren’t named but perhaps anonymity is best when planning to overthrow the US presidential election.

Quoting Rep-elect Greene exclusively in the article, there is evidence that the White House was planning to overthrow (sorry, maybe I should be PC and use the word “challenge”) the election results.

Collusion and Intent. That is exactly what it was to undermine the authenticity of electoral college votes… only in states that, per Rep-elect Greene, “When you look at what’s happened in a lot of these liberal swing states, that have liberal governors, and liberal secretaries of state, you can see that they have broken the law and gone against the our Consitution with this election.”

There isn’t a shred of truth to these wild allegations and yet she uttered them. Do you need a run down? A) There are no liberal and conservative swing states. If she knew what a swing state was then she would never have said that. B) In the swing states, three of them have Republican governors and three have Democrat governors. C) The Secretaries of State are the same party as the Governor. D) There is no evidence that any elected official of any state interfered with the vote counting or vote result reporting.

The WH Plan was to contest the vote in several states and simply not count those Biden-electoral college ballots until Joe Biden was under the 270 votes needed to reject his win in the national election.

In addition, the Republican Party brought a Republican slate of electors to Washington for them to vote (instead of the Democrat slate of electors) to increase the Electoral College count, if needed. This was obviously discussed as a strategy but discarded as too farfetched.

However, what may have been discussed is what happens if both candidates do not receive the 270 EC votes to win. In which case Congress votes; the House votes for President and the Senate votes for Vice President. In an interesting twist, each state gets one vote in each chamber. It isn’t one vote per Representative or one vote per Senator. It’s one vote per state. And there are more Republican states than Democrat states in Congress. The election could easily turn into a referendum for Republicans.

But it didn’t. Why?

Because the invasion of Trump supporters caused the Electoral College to be halted and, when it resumed, Congress decided NOT to contest the certified election results.

If the Capitol had not been breached, there is an excellent chance that Donald Trump would still be president today.

Law and Order? ROFL

The “Law and Order” President appears to once again break the law by ordering it to be done. I guess that is what he meant by this:

https://apnews.com/article/billings-montana-archive-only-on-ap-472201d09bc69de32fbf3e110c094fa6

When the President is not draining the swamp, he is creating a new one.

Here is how the corrupt Trump Admin really get things done:

a) Appoint a shill to a Deputy position avoiding Senate confirmation.

b) Appoint the shill to the Acting Director position but never have your buddy in the Senate actually confirm him for the job as Director.

c) Your shill knows he will not be appointed so he writes something that says as long as there is no Director over him , then all the power and duties of the Director’s office now belong to him.

d) Then the shill opens up 95% of the federal lands in Montana to oil and gas companies.

e) Then the Montana governor sues the Trump Administration because the un-appointed shill didn’t have the Constitutional authority to actually approve selling those rights in Montana.

f) Then the Trump layers argue that while the shill didn’t have the position, he did have the authority and power to do what he did because he wrote a piece of paper that said he did. Then they said Obama did it, too…like children.

g) The Judge tells them they are idiots and rules against the President’s lawyers.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s leading steward of public lands has been serving unlawfully, blocking him from continuing in the position in the latest pushback against the administration’s practice of filling key positions without U.S. Senate approval.

U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management acting director William Perry Pendley served unlawfully for 424 days without being confirmed to the post by the Senate as required under the Constitution, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris determined.”

Oh, did I mention that William Perry Pendley also did this:

During the Reagan administration, Pendley was a deputy interior secretary for energy and minerals under James G. Watt.[7] Pendley was reassigned in 1984 when a federal commission faulted him, along with other high-ranking officials, in the underpricing of coal-mining leases in the Powder River Basin, the largest such federal sale in history.[