Term Limits For Congress

 It is well past time to make an amendment to the US Constitution to limit the consecutive terms that may be served by a Congressional Senator or Representative. Many professional politicians do not serve the people of their district, but instead serve their own personal agenda.

I do believe we have some decent congress people, but it is difficult to separate the good from the not-so-good. It does seem that the concept of "swamp" applies to the US Congress due to the fact that there is no clear method for John/Jane Q. Public to see what is really happening in the Halls of Congress or to succinctly understand the implications of a 2000-6000 page Bill before the House or Senate.

If we limit the number of consecutive terns of office a Senator may serve to 3, we are allowing a good Senator to serve for 18 years, and that is plenty of time to serve. If we limit the number of consecutive terms for a Representative to 9, they would also serve 18 years. (These numbers are just used for an example.) It is also a good idea to determine early if a congressional representative in either house is serving the needs of that representative's constituency. If yes, vote them in office for another term. If not, vote them out of office.

There is a process described in the US Constitution for the amending of the Constitution. I think the US Constitution should be our guide as Citizens of the United States. If you are unfamiliar with this document, I include it for your benefit at United States Constitution.

Japan To Dump Radioactive Water Into The Ocean

Warning – Japan Intends To Pollute The Pacific Ocean

The Japanese government believes that in 2022 they will no longer be able to store any more radioactive water and will begin dumping it into the Ocean.

Why Do They Have So Much Radioactive Water?

Answer: Tsunami. 

The Japanese' Fukushima nuclear reactor plant was damaged beyond repair by the tsunami of March 2011. This article in The Guardian tells how much radioactive water they have stored and when they will begin releasing it into the ocean.

Who Will Be Affected By The Dumping?

Answer: Billions of Fish; the Fishing Industry; the population of Japan.

The Japanese Fishing Industry is understandably upset that so much contaminated water will be introduced into the ocean. Neighboring South Korea is also very concerned that this dumping will negatively affect their fishing industry as well.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is struggling to deal with the groundwater that is mixing with the water that was used to keep the overheating power plant cores from melting down. Since seawater is not drinkable, groundwater is necessary to maintain a national population and the groundwater is mixing with contaminated water. Japan may not be able to provide water for their citizens in the years to come. Some new technology will need to be employed to create potable water for the Japanese citizenry.

TEPCO also admits that the water that is to be released into the ocean contains contaminates, including some nuclear material.

Is Dumping Unwanted Nuclear Water The Only Solution?

Certainly not! I did a little study and present the following information for consideration.

What Could Be Done?

Answer: Vaporization will remove radioactive materials and other contaminants. 

I found an article about distilling water to remove radiation. This might be able to be done on a large scale thereby vaporizing the water and leaving behind the particulate that includes all the particles of contaminating material.

The remaining nuclear material and all other contaminants can be easily contained in a small fraction of the space required to store the contaminated water.

The problem that remains is Tritium. 

What is Tritium & Why Is It A Problem?

Is Tritium Radioactive?

Tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of Hydrogen. It is known as Hydrogen-3 and notated as ³H.

Tritium occurs naturally but only in very minute quantities. Tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides because it has an extremely weak beta particle. 

A beta particle is the particle released when the half-life of nuclear material has been reached. Although Tritium has a fairly quick half-life of 12.3 years, the particle released when half-life has been reached has only enough energy to move about 6 millimeters (in the air). 

Its weak particle has insufficient energy to penetrate the layer of "dead skin" on the surface of the human body. Therefore the beta particle released in the atmosphere is almost meaningless in terms of radioactive damage. It is so weak it cannot be detected by a Geiger Counter.

Is Tritiated Water Dangerous

Water with Tritium acts almost precisely like water with normal Hydrogen. About 60% of the human adult body is water according to USGS.org in the article The Water In You: Water and the Human Body. Since Tritium occurs naturally, it is certainly in the water of the human body in minute quantities. It is processed out of the body like any water.

Additional Tritium can be introduced into the human body by breathing (vaporous moisture), drinking, or by absorption through the skin (as water) when using water contaminated by excessive Tritium.

Tritiated water is not H₂O. Tritiated water occurs naturally in minute amounts as either a molecule of HTO (1 atom of hydrogen, 1 atom of tritium, and 1 atom of oxygen) or as T₂O (2 atoms of tritium and 1 atom of oxygen). In either case, when the tritiated water has found its way into the human body and reaches its half-life, the released beta particle will cause ionization in the surrounding body material, slightly increasing the possibility of the surrounding tissue becoming cancerous.

According to Health Physics Society [Specialists in Radiation Safety], it is common for Tritium (³H) to exist in the human body. Therefore the danger of releasing stored tritiated water into the ecosphere is that it increases slightly the possibility of the occurrence of cancer in an organ or other tissue in the human body.

Can Tritiated Water Be Removed From Japan's Storage

A research team including 'Professor Tatsuhiko Ihara of Kindai University specializing in inorganic material chemistry, and researchers from Osaka-based Toyo Aluminium K.K. and others, has developed an aluminum filter with extremely tiny holes 5 nanometers or less in diameter each. The filter can stop vapors of tritium water, and the separation rate was "almost 100 percent," according to a team spokesman.'

That quote is taken directly from an article titled Researchers develop technology to remove radioactive tritium from water in The Manichi—Japan's National Daily since 1922.

The Final Note

There is no need to release radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.

Japan can take measures to ensure the safety of its water table and the safety of the ocean. The nuclear water being stored can be vaporized and filtered to assure the removal of its contaminants. The process may be slow, so implementation should be started as soon as possible.

It is not only a problem to be shouldered by Japan. It is the result of a major natural catastrophe. The nations of the world should be involved together to manage the release of the water used to safeguard the world from the effect of the possible melt-down of the core of the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Japan saved us all from the devastation the melt-down of the core would have caused in our ecosphere. Now we must all help Japan clean the water used to prevent that melt-down.

This is our world. Let's work to protect it.

Abraham Lincoln's Supreme Court

Watching the Vice-Presidential debate, I noted Kamala Harris' comments regarding Abraham Lincoln.  She stated that in 1861, Mr. Lincoln advised he would defer a nomination for an empty seat on the Supreme Court until after the impending election.  Putting words in Mr. Lincolns' mouth, according to Ms. Harris  “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first. 

I was puzzled by her statement.  Firstly in 1861 Mr. Lincoln was newly elected to his first term.  There was no "impending election" in 1861.  November 6, 1860 was the date of the previous election.  The next election cycle would not occur until November 8, 1864.  Rather, I am sure she is referring to the vacant seat of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.  Justice Taney died October 12th, 1864.  

I would like to think if Ms. Harris had done the research herself she would be familiar with these dates.  I suspect someone on her staff provided this as a "talking point", in an attempt to cast a negative light on President Trump.  Implying he is acting in some immoral or unethical way in filling a vacant seat at the end of his term.

It's mentionable that Chief Justice Taney was the author of the infamous Dred Scott decision.  The opinion written by him states that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."

One would think that Mr. Lincoln would be eager to fill that vacant seat with a Justice more inclined towards his own policies.  The US was still embroiled in the Civil War, slavery was a very heated topic of the day.

However, according to the website which details the history of Congressional sessions, (https://history.house.gov/Institution/Session-Dates/30-39/) Congress was not in session from July 5, 1864 until December 5th, 1864.  Therefore, President Lincoln was unable to submit any nomination to Congress at the time of Justice Taney's death.  On December 5th President Lincoln nominated his former Secretary of State, Salmon Chase.  The first opportunity Mr. Lincoln had, his nomination was submitted, and Justice Chase was confirmed that very day.  The shortest confirmation in history.

This information, again, shows someone did not do their research regarding the talking point.  It shows a subversive attempt to rewrite history to match the narrative the Progressive Left want us to believe.  This is a perfect example of the selective editing Vice-President Pence accused Ms. Harris of.

Of further note regarding the Supreme Court in Mr. Lincolns' time, was the fear the court was attempting to legislate, rather than interpret the law.  In his own first Inaugural Address President Lincoln stated: I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

In our current era, that same issue is prevalent.  The Progressive Left are Federalists.  They want the Court to be another Legislative branch.  They worry over the potential reversal of Roe V Wade if more conservative justices are appointed to the court.  This is their justification for "packing the court".  They would appoint more Justices to ensure a Liberal bias in the Court.  What they don't want to admit is that a reversal of Roe V Wade would not make abortion illegal.  It would simply allow each state to make it's own laws regarding abortion.  The Left would have you believe the rights every citizen enjoys are at the behest of the Federal Government.  However, the 10th Amendment states clearly, those rights are at the behest of each State's government.  

Don't buy the rhetoric, research and study on your own.  Find the facts and judge for yourself.  Be fearless and make your own choices, rather than believe the misrepresentations dished up for your consumption. 

Prefab Housing

It is becoming more & more expensive to buy a ready-to-inhabit home. 

Sure, we can buy a "could-be-nice" house for a fairly well-reduced price, but it may be many upgrades away from becoming the "home" we need.

Enter VEEV. Check out their Blog.

Prognostication about how to proceed to contain Covid-19

Current Status of Covid-19

What is happening in the US at this time (Mar 24, 2020)

• Self-Isolation: If you have been in a public venue, you should isolate yourself for at least 5.1 days [the time for the virus to begin to exhibit symptoms in your body].
• Social Distancing: We are not to be within 6 feet of another person. Maybe there are some caveats:
• If we have been quarantined with that person there is no social distancing
• If there is no evidence of symptoms after 14 days of self-isolation, begin social distancing
• Use your brain to determine how to shop at grocery stores
• Use your computer to shop from home and have your order delivered to your home
• Use Clorox Wipes (or some wipe that claims to kill 99% of viruses) to wipe the outside of the packaging as you open your order
• Wear proper latex gloves to open packaging even while cleaning with "wipes"
• Be aware that the person with symptoms should be wearing a mask to minimize dispersion of the respiratory fluids that pass the virus

What information is available to really inform us

There are certainly a lot of opinions about how to approach the coronavirus Covid-19. I just read a very interesting post on medium.com. The author is Tomas Pueyo. The post is very well researched and its conclusions are heartening. Understand as you read that the author is not giving you his conclusions, but is unfolding the information retrieved from many sources and many contributors

Here is the Link: The Hammer and the Dance

If you understand the presentation and agree with the premise, there is a way you can make your voice heard by our government. "We The People" is a link that receives the White House's attention when a petition presented on the site reaches a critical number of signatures.

What can be done to get us back to work

added: March 29, 2020
We can send the youth without symptoms back to work while they continue to practice social distancing with other workers. If they live in a multi-generational family home, they should self-quarantine to one level of the home (with access to the garage), and have meals delivered at an entrance to that floor by another young person who leaves before the meals are picked up by the self-quarantined individual.

In this way, we may actually save the national economy.

Did Singapore close their economy

Reports are that Singapore did not send their people home from their jobs. It is said they did not even close their schools. It seems that they "hammered" the spread of Covid-19 by serious self-isolation of the elderly and the infirm. Apparently, they kept their economy functioning with the working youth and those of either vigorous health or successful virus recovery. The very young continued to attend school but were isolated from the older generation.

Here is a report that seems to indicate how they proceeded against the spread of the Covid-19 virus.

How Singapore "Hammered" Covid-19

This data is old now, but may still be very relevant.

Just what jobs are actually "essential"

In this list, it may be that some of these jobs do not seem essential to you. Think again [and again].

• medical professionals
• manufacturers
• General Motors and Ford are making new ventilators 
• LVMH (luxury perfume maker) is making hand sanitizer
• Altress (small, made-to-order dressmaker) is making surgical masks


• De Soto Sport (high-end sports apparel) is giving away breathable, adjustable face masks
• LMVH (Louis Vuitton and Dior) has ordered 20 million medical masks from China
• Fashion companies (H&M and Zara) and luxury firms (LVMH, Kering, and Prada) are looking for the proper materials to begin making masks
• Kering (Gucci, Balenciaga, and Yves Saint Laurent) will begin making masks
• ResMed (San Diego based) will maximize the production of ventilators, masks, and other respiratory devices
• delivery personnel UPS & FedEx have been continually making deliveries of needed materials and even food orders to self-isolated groups and families
• gasoline suppliers enable delivery companies
• Amazon & Walmart ship their product line
• these workers need to be on the job to package orders
• drivers need to be available for deliveries
• stockers are obviously required to assemble orders
• Distilleries are manufacturing hand sanitizers
• Brown-Forman (Woodford Reserve & Old Forester Distillery started delivering free sanitizer to first responders
• Neeley Family Distillery is making small batches of hand sanitizer and allowing people to bring their own bottles to fill up for a donation
• Lexington Brewing & Distilling, Rabbit Hole Distillery, and Wilderness Trail Distillery have all announced they intend to produce hand sanitizer

Looking through the "Looking Glass"

1. Let's continue self-isolation for those with symptoms or positive test results
2. Let's continue social distancing because it is good practice to stem the spread of Covid-19
3. Let's put the youth of the workforce back to work in a way that saves our economy
4. Let's review the meaning of 'Essential Jobs"
5. Let's be sensible and logical to move toward containment of this virus without social destruction
6. Let's manage this without extreme hoarding or contentious social disorder

One man's fear about how society reacts to COVID-19

Abdu Sharkawy

March 5 at 6:45 PM · 

I'm a doctor and an Infectious Diseases Specialist. I've been at this for more than 20 years seeing sick patients on a daily basis. I have worked in inner city hospitals and in the poorest slums of Africa. HIV-AIDS, Hepatitis,TB, SARS, Measles, Shingles, Whooping cough, Diphtheria...there is little I haven't been exposed to in my profession. And with notable exception of SARS, very little has left me feeling vulnerable, overwhelmed or downright scared.

I am not scared of Covid-19. I am concerned about the implications of a novel infectious agent that has spread the world over and continues to find new footholds in different soil. I am rightly concerned for the welfare of those who are elderly, in frail health or disenfranchised who stand to suffer mostly, and disproportionately, at the hands of this new scourge. But I am not scared of Covid-19.

What I am scared about is the loss of reason and wave of fear that has induced the masses of society into a spellbinding spiral of panic, stockpiling obscene quantities of anything that could fill a bomb shelter adequately in a post-apocalyptic world. I am scared of the N95 masks that are stolen from hospitals and urgent care clinics where they are actually needed for front line healthcare providers and instead are being donned in airports, malls, and coffee lounges, perpetuating even more fear and suspicion of others. I am scared that our hospitals will be overwhelmed with anyone who thinks they " probably don't have it but may as well get checked out no matter what because you just never know..." and those with heart failure, emphysema, pneumonia and strokes will pay the price for overfilled ER waiting rooms with only so many doctors and nurses to assess.

I am scared that travel restrictions will become so far reaching that weddings will be canceled, graduations missed and family reunions will not materialize. And well, even that big party called the Olympic Games...that could be kyboshed too. Can you even
imagine?

I'm scared those same epidemic fears will limit trade, harm partnerships in multiple sectors, business and otherwise and ultimately culminate in a global recession.

But mostly, I'm scared about what message we are telling our kids when faced with a threat. Instead of reason, rationality, openmindedness and altruism, we are telling them to panic, be fearful, suspicious, reactionary and self-interested.

Covid-19 is nowhere near over. It will be coming to a city, a hospital, a friend, even a family member near you at some point. Expect it. Stop waiting to be surprised further. The fact is the virus itself will not likely do much harm when it arrives. But our own behaviors and "fight for yourself above all else" attitude could prove disastrous.

I implore you all. Temper fear with reason, panic with patience and uncertainty with education. We have an opportunity to learn a great deal about health hygiene and limiting the spread of innumerable transmissible diseases in our society. Let's meet this challenge together in the best spirit of compassion for others, patience, and above all, an unfailing effort to seek truth, facts and knowledge as opposed to conjecture, speculation and catastrophizing.

Facts not fear. Clean hands. Open hearts.
Our children will thank us for it.

#washurhands #geturflushot #respect #patiencenotpanic

Superbowl 2020 Celebration In Kansas City MO

Where Is The Craziness

We are used to seeing championship games being accompanied by raucous celebrations in recent years. We have previously watched championship celebrations accompanied by upturned, burning cars or looting in neighborhoods or small fires in streets—all of which reminds me somewhat of actions that occur in "second-world" countries from time to time.

What happened in Kansas City, MO as the people celebrated the Kansas City Chiefs return after winning the 54th Superbowl? Wow! It was incredible! People waited for the Chiefs' parade to pass by their position, affording each Kansas City celebrant an opportunity to cheer for their team and its accomplishment. Heck – it was drizzling snow at the time, and people remained controlled by their own consistent conscience. What a dream.

A Special Moment

I am so proud of my hometown. Kansas City has many beautiful aspects, and its self-control is one of those beautiful aspects. 

Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs and congratulations to the citizens of Kansas City. What a place, and what a celebration.

I remember that the same kind of celebration happened when the Kansas City Royals won the World Series. it must just be "something in the water." I sure hope so, and I hope I evidence that same self-control both now and in the future.

Kansas City – congratulations! You are the best!

Kansas City Chiefs – congratulations! YOU ARE THE BEST!

New on the Impeachment

Obfuscation

I have heard so many opinions about this impeachment that I can imagine anyone feeling a little overwhelmed by all the rhetoric. Personally, I am somewhat underwhelmed by the lack of strong rational background to most of what I hear.

Some Considerations

There are five (there are actually more) ideas & questions I have put to this page to express what I think may actually be important about the situation that led to the current procedure to impeach.

These are those five items:

1. Our government has given aid to corrupt governments often in the past - at least to governments that do not have the US perspective on personal freedoms or individual rights. I know we don't want to perform nation-building, but shouldn't we be able to want other nations to "do the right thing" in order to have an economic relationship with our nation?
2. I have the impression that current President Donald Trump wants to "drain the swamp" and that may mean decreasing corruption in our national government. Could this intent to decrease corruption also include corruption that includes our citizens - even in other countries?
3. It may be difficult to identify corruption, so it makes sense to investigate. Nobody wants to make an innocent person look guilty of corruption. So why not investigate or request an investigation?.
4. Can an investigation in another nation be performed with US investigators? Should we ask permission to investigate in another nation? Should we ask that other nation to investigate the matter themselves using their own investigators? Is it wrong to ask?
5. Each nation's corruption is its own problem, but what is our nation's responsibility if the corruption may involve our own citizens working in that other nation?

These are my questions.

FISA Court Ruling Allegations

Also, I heard Congressman John Radcliff speak some time ago on Maria Bartiromo's show Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News that he is certain that "Justice delayed is not Justice denied" regarding the ongoing investigation into the actions leading to the FISA Court decision to allow the continued surveillance of Carter Page.

I have downloaded and skimmed through the Justice Department document about their findings, and I can't speak about their conclusions because I haven't given the document a careful perusal. It is provided to you all in the previous sentence because maybe you can get a sense of it yourselves. After some searching, I have read the opinions of several people, and found those opinions to be offered to support whatever it seemed the author wanted to be the truth. My suggestion is to read the document.

If the information provided to the FISA Court was true, then how long should a surveillance continue? Forever?

If the information provided to the FISA Court was not accurate, then what is the recourse for the surveillance that was continued against a US citizen inappropriately?

If the information provided was thought to be true at the time it was offered, yet later found to be inaccurate, should there be a legal action to be followed to achieve equilibrium?

What is to be done if the information provided to the FISA Court to achieve surveillance of Carter Page was known to be inaccurate yet useful?

I think we should know these answers in order to know what brought on this impeachment and why or even if it matters at all as a matter of national security.

Separation Of Powers

Isn't it true that each of the three branches of the US Government are supposed to be able to check each other from becoming dominant?

Doesn't that imply that the President of the United States is expected from time-to-time to Obstruct Congress? If the Congress is never obstructed, they may well become the dominant branch of government. That is not to say the "job" of the POTUS [President Of The United States] is to obstruct Congress. Nothing should be further from the truth. However, it seems the constitution implies that the three branches are to provide a form of check-and-balance against the rising power of any one branch. However, that statement may require review by the Supreme Court to determine its validity.

Is it truly obstruction to decline to allow your appointees to give testimony to an agency known to desire your downfall? This must also be a subject for lawyers to determine, but I would rather hear the debate delivered by an actual impartial group on its merits alone and not based on who the answer will either exonerate or convict. I doubt we can expect to put together such a panel.

It doesn't benefit any citizen if the Executive branch is the greatest power in our government – that would seem like we elect a ruler every four years. It doesn't benefit any citizen if the Legislative branch is the greatest power in our government – that would seem like our lawmakers become enforcers as well. It doesn't benefit any citizen if the Judicial branch is the greatest power in our government – that would seem to allow those who are selected to judge the constitutionality of the law to also determine the law and probably also to send the troops into your home.

My opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that the compilers of this great document—The Constitution Of The United States—knew what they were doing. There is a reason that the POTUS faces the other nations of the world as representative of the people of our nation and the Legislature makes the laws that govern our nation and the Supreme Court determines if specific legislation is in agreement with the intent of the Constitution Of The United States—NO ONE BRANCH CAN DO IT ALL WITH CLARITY.

It truly hurts the ego when someone "steps on your toes" in business or relationships or conversations. However, in government each of the branches is almost expected to do exactly this in order that government does only what it is supposed to do rather than everything it wants to do.

I personally expected them – the three branches of government – to obstruct each other whenever necessary to curtail encroachment of one over the others. I don't expect the President to disband the legislature or the Legislature to impeach the President (except for treason or high crimes) or for the Supreme Court to be stripped of the power to determine if a legislation is constitutional.

Conclusion

We don't have to get along. We don't have to believe the same thing. You don't need to agree with anything I have written in this article. I don't have to believe you either. Please don't get rid of me because you disagree with me. Please don't tear up my article behind my back because you don't like me. Please don't get me fired because I do something you don't like. Please don't hate me because I am not the person you want to be doing the job I was chosen to accomplish. Please don't embarrass all of us to all our friends and enemies.

Remember that I am not your enemy. I am your compatriot.

OK – Put 'Em Up!

I think this is a rant, but let's find out together.

Sometimes we just have to fight!
I wonder why. We should be able to get along. Shouldn't we?

We share a planet. Also a Nation, a City, and a neighborhood. Sometimes we even share the same house or the same bed. Come on people.

It is truly a magnificent monument to our individual and collective arrogance to believe one person's opinion is tantamount to a truth on a pedestal so elevated that another person's opinion cannot hope to ascend to a reasonably equivalent height.

Here is the crux of the problem. You think you know what is best for the world. I think I know what is best for the world. That person over there thinks he/she knows what is best for the world. None of  us might be right or wrong. It's when we act on our opinions that things get all screwed up.

It would probably work better between us all if we agreed it is acceptable for you to be you and me to be me. Whatever I think. Whatever you think. If you think cars are better than buses and I think I want to use group transportation, that should be ok. Sound like it could be right, right?

What about public toilets? What about sexual orientation? If I want to understand myself as a male-born-a-male and you want to understand yourself as a male-born-a-female, we can use the same bathroom because you can enter a stall. Oh crap! I can't decide for you that you must always use a stall, can I?

Or, what about sexual identification? Let's say I decided to identify as a male-born-female and use the female bathroom (I am a male—by the way), you will be comfortable with that won't you?

If I want to refer to you as a black (assuming you are negroid) is that ok or must you be an african-american... How do I refer to you if you are a negro from India? Am I actually being this insensitive? If I call you an Indian, how does anybody else know I am not referring to you as an american Indian. Can you refer to me as a white man, Caucasian, or even a cracker? Why are policemen called Pigs, and why is there such a big deal about not serving them at Starbucks?

Are you a terrorist? Am I? Reading this article, I sort of sound like one to me. I mean, really, should it matter to me that you won't drink wine, or won't wear taffeta, or only eat vegetables, or think my choice for President of my country sucks, or don't think I have any reasonable thoughts if the ones I have aren't the same as yours, or shouldn't have the right to live because I am Jewish?

How in the world do we get past these kind of differences? Is it even possible? Can we get along? Really, I wonder. It is a serious question. Do we really need to kill each other? Is that the only option?

Ok, then, ten paces, turn, and fire.

Does the President of the United States need Congressional authorization to assassinate a terrorist leader?

President Trump Authorizes Assassination of Qassem Soleimani

Democrats in the US Legislature state that President Trump should have sought Congressional approval for the action taken to assassinate Soleimani.

Jennifer Rubin – opinion writer for the Washington Post – wrote in What responsible Democrats should be saying about Iran: "To date, virtually all statements from Democrats in the House and Senate reflected acknowledgment that Soleimani was an enemy of the United States who deserved his fate but that the administration acted without consultation with Congress..."

When we were first informed that Soleimani had been assassinated, I heard several TV News Anchors making the same accusation that the administration acted without 'consulting' congress. What needs to be addressed is whether there is a precedent for this 'consultation' in similar circumstances.

Previous President Obama Authorizes Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

President Obama authorized the assassination of Osama bin Laden without Congressional approval.

As I read the article on the planning for the assassination of Osama bin Laden, I was struck that although it was made very clear that the plans were not published or even much known outside the White House, there was no mention of a need to ask for Congressional Approval.

Maybe That Is Not Strictly True

Tom Rogan writes an Opinion for the Washington Examiner entitled Why Trump didn't need congressional approval to kill Qassim Soleimani and makes the assertion that President Obama did have authorization for the Bin Laden assassination due to permissions granted as a result of the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. He goes further to assert that while there is an on-going authorization for covert action on Iran, the assassination of Soleimani did not trigger a need for authorization because it was both overt and it's scope was very narrow. Read the entire article (link above) for more clarity on this topic.

Here We Go Again

Several years ago – 2016 to be exact – Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

Since that election, Trump detractors have been claiming he has no proper authority to do the job of POTUS as he understands the position. He has been defamed for border security work, for enacting tax deductions that are supposedly dangerous, for debilitating "Obama Care" without creating a total healthcare for all citizens, for interacting with world leaders without utilizing political correctness, and now for assassinating a known terrorist.

What Is The Difference

Nahal Toosi, Daniel Lippman and Wesley Morgan wrote in their article Trump takes massive gamble with killing of Iranian commander (near the end of the piece) the following quote: “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question,” tweeted Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”

There is the difference. Osama Bin Laden was not a member of a national government. Qassem Soleimani was a high-ranking member of the Iranian national government. Bin Laden was independent of a specific nation. Soleimani was intricately aligned with one. Assassinating Bin Laden could not be viewed as an attack against a nation. Assassinating Soleimani can be seen as an attack against Iran, and will possibly be described by Iran as an act of war.

Why Does Trump Focus Against Iran

Apparently, according to Time Magazine: "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 80 years of age, disabled by a saboteur’s bomb blast and lit by a righteous certainty, holds the title of Supreme Leader of Iran. But he has quietly emerged as the most powerful person in the Middle East..."

This article makes the point that the current Iranian Ayatollah has no regard for President Trump, and is not afraid to lash out at any country that stands in the way of the path he intends to follow.

Just the kind of despot no one wants to find in their house. Since "politics makes strange bedfellows" I get the impression that world leaders could be seen to share the same bed or at least the same house.

What Is The Endgame

We don't really know—those of us who are not in on the secrets of politics.

If I thought I had an answer, I would share it.

When I discover it, I'll tell you.

Democratic Leadership Flip-Flops on Border Security

Why does President Trump get a "bad rap" from the Democratic Leadership regarding his stance on Border Security? The last two Democratic Presidents [Clinton & Obama] spoke clearly for the need for border security. Even Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer strongly supported the need to keep the U.S. borders secure from those who would enter the country without permission.

At this time [2019-2020] in the political arena the momentum of the Democratic Party seems to lean apathetically away from "border security" and intently toward "all-inclusiveness" in terms of who is allowed to live, drive, work, learn, receive healthcare and vote in the USA.

It is not political speech to single out the Party in this matter of border security. It is simply that I heard a clip on Facebook that was posted from a Larry Elder show. I had no previous experience with Larry Elder or his show, but the voices on the link struck me because I recognized them. I do understand that these things can be faked, but I think these are valid. That audio is included here to provide context for my previous comments.


I'm not using this to glorify President Trump nor do I intend to denigrate his opposition. I just want to publish that some individuals have recently flipped their position regarding border security. I would like to ask "Why is Border Security no longer important?"

Also, why are the immigration problems that have existed for decades not addressed. Why have the many voices in both major political parties who have spoken for border security in the past not supporting border security measures being undertaken in the present in the present?

Respect

I remember when I was a teenager my father told me I was disrespectful to a certain man. I said that what that man did was not worthy of respect. Father told me the man deserved my respect because of his age. I said that I didn't respect age, but actions. My father told me to always respect my elders. I still stand on my previous position regarding respect. I suppose I have always had a problem accepting the norm defining respect. Now I am defined as 70% disabled [by the State of Israel], and as such I am authorized to go through the 10-items-only lane with a full cart and (if I desire) go to the head of the line immediately. I do the former sometimes and rarely do the latter. I respect the people waiting in the line as having been there before me. I also respect the government agency authorization that allows me to disrespect the general rule of the 10-item-or-less checkout lane. I never understood Respect as being clearly defined. Sometimes I stand when a person I respect enters a room. Sometimes the person has come to speak to the group, and sometimes the person has come to sit with us all and listen. Sometimes I enter a room and some people will stand for me. I don't know what I may have done to deserve this honor from them. I am no one special. Maybe they were taught by their fathers to honor their elders. I am certainly "elder" than many. Maybe I need to dwell on this concept of Respect. Maybe my father understood that the respect I bestowed on others would one day come back to visit me. Interesting idea.