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.