Laws are for little people [POLITICS]

       I saw the phrase “Laws are for little people” a lot during the campaign in regards to Hillary Clinton. The premise being that she was guilty as sin but not being prosecuted for her numerous crimes. The simple fact at this point is that she is/was not in fact guilty or she would have been charged already. Republicans have been after her for three decades and attempted several prosecutions to no avail. President Trump campaigned on throwing her in jail. Yet another campaign promise that he hasn’t delivered on.

       But this isn’t about Hillary Clinton. She’s yesterday’s news.

       There’s another old phrase about actions speaking louder than words. I don’t know how accurate that is because President Trump, our President, not only talks and tweets like a guilty man, he acts like a man who is guilty. He’s trying his best to shut down any investigation into his activities. He is operating under the delusion that the President can do anything, is above answering to anyone and is above the law. At times he says that he’s been found not guilty.

       We’ve seen this before. President Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon conducted himself in much the same fashion. He resigned from office rather than be prosecuted. President Gerald Ford promptly pardoned him. Laws are for little people.

        President Johnson also claimed that the press lied. We have since learned that not only was Johnson lying but so was his cabinet and most of his generals in regards to how the Vietnam War was being prosecuted and what was actually happening. He didn’t seek the office for a second term. Laws are for little people.

       What President Trump has been calling “fake news” is now being verified as being real by associates and members of his own family. The meetings with Russians did take place. President Trump, his family and administration did in fact lie about events. They lied to the press. They lied to congress. They lied when filling out forms for their security clearances. They lied about lying by calling it fake news. Most importantly though—they lied to the American people.

        Some excuses for lying include:

• ·         Oh, that meeting!
• ·         Oh gosh! Forgot about the meetings with the Russians.
• ·         Didn’t think it mattered.
• ·         Would have mentioned it but nothing happened.
• ·         Couldn’t provide an accurate count of how many attended. Was it 8 or 9?
• ·         Which meeting?
• ·         Never happened.
• ·         Didn’t know there were Russians in the room.
• ·         Oh, those Russians.
• ·         The Russians didn’t have any dirt on Clinton so the meeting was a bust.
• ·         Thought I was the only one there.
• ·         Talked about the business that we have with Russians that we don’t have.
• ·         We were too busy obstructing justice to remember.

        They lied until there was no more avoiding the reality of the preponderance of evidence. Eric Trump was the first to crack because he got caught. There’s always that first one. The first one usually gets the better deal. Besides, confession is good for the soul. They forgot the old rule that 3 people can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead.

       The foreign power that they met with happened to be the Russians. (Russians that they are doing business with.) If they had met with the English or the French it would still have been just as illegal. But they met with a power that just happens to have a hundreds of nuclear weapons targeting our country. They met with the country that meddled in OUR elections. That doesn’t make it any more illegal. It does make it worse at a very fundamental level. It says that our democracy isn’t that important to them. It means that they placed America second. They wanted to throw in with a nation that would destroy our way of life.

       Now I don’t think that anything is going to happen to President Trump. I don’t think he will be impeached. The leadership of the Republican Party isn’t about to hold a Republican President Trump to the same standards that they held President Obama or even regular law abiding citizens. They are having success in dismantling government by simply sitting back and watching the chaos of ineptitude. Besides that they simply don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes. They’ll come up with all sorts of high sounding reasons for not doing anything. They’ll even talk about “The Rule of Law” a lot. Besides, they’re afraid of him and Bannon, and are seriously afraid of Trump’s supporters. Probably first and foremost the House of Representatives will never vote for articles of impeachment unless his illegal activity becomes too hard to ignore*. Then they’ll drag things out for as long as possible. They’ll continue to anonymously leak to the press what they won’t say in public about how incredibly bad a President he is. That way they’ll have plausible deniability at election time for President Trump supporters. They aren’t about to place the country, our nation and its people above their own self-interests. Because when push comes to shove…

Laws are for little people.

*The House votes the articles of impeachment. The Senate conducts the trial.

Rambo Jesus [Religion]

        As usual I had trouble deciding on a title for this piece. I started with "A Provocation" and from there went to, "Would Jesus have carried an M60?". I have settled with "Rambo Jesus". I’m not the first to come up with that concept. I think that it was mentioned in a movie as well.

        Awhile back I saw a post on facebook of a picture of a young Army wife holding a semi-automatic weapon and carrying a bible while standing in front of an American flag. I avoided posting a comment. Evidently her picture set off quite the facebook firestorm. The subject matter is intentionally provocative. The young woman has made at least one other provocative pose.

        Did you see what I did there? I tried putting the thought of another possibility in your mind. Normally I wouldn't spell it out like this but I think that it's important in this instance.

        In the other picture she made this comment, "ATTENTION LIBERALS: do NOT look at this picture. Your head will most likely explode." The theme was also religious in that picture. Her picture is making the rounds again and probably will be for as long as we have an internet.

        The subject that I'm going to address isn't about the constitution and our associated freedoms or lack thereof. It's how we as Christians often present a mixed message to the world of guns and bibles or intolerance for the freedom of others based upon various interpretations of what our faith means.

        I won't pretend to have any kind of answer since what I'm usually left with are more questions. I have guns and bibles; various quantities of both. I served in the military and was quite prepared to do my job. I'm also grateful that I wasn't called on to use those talents and training, though I did train others.

        What message does our love for guns and Jesus send? What message do we send as Christians when we mock liberals, conservatives, sexuality, dress, taste in music, physiology, the politics of others, etc.? Pick an issue. Come find Jesus, you abomination you. Then throw in that there are Christians on both sides of most of the major issues facing our country and faith. I realize that we aren't alone. Other faiths face the same kind of conundrums. Non-believers deal with the same kind of issues as well.

        So if there is a picture in your mind of Jesus, what does he look like? What color is he? How is he dressed? Is he wearing a headband and carrying an M60? Is he wearing a suit and tie or in an open collared dress shirt with a sports coat and jeans? Does he smell? Is he wearing cologne?

        When he was here he blended in with the crowd.  So I think, just think mind you, that he wouldn’t now be dressed like Rambo. He would dress in such a way as to minister to the poor, the sick, those who were hungry, those in need. He would be dressed for the lower echelons of society. He would not dress to appeal to the Romans of the day.

        Shouldn't Love be our unified message as Christians? That sounds easy but that's a hard page to turn to at times. It's easier to provoke. But those chance words, viral videos, critical little catchy sound bites do damage and cause separation. They aren't intended to win over hearts or change minds. They are lines in the sand—not invitations to meet and share fellowship. So yes, Love should be the Christian message.

Spread it around like fertilizer (GOVERNMENT)

NOTE:  Originally I wrote about this topic in the “Leave the swamp” piece. I decided to expand upon the subject.

        There are a couple of ways to take the title. Try for the positive.

        For a long time I have believed that concentrating our government in one place just serves to make a particular geographic location an attractive target for either nuclear, conventional or unconventional weapons. It serves as a results magnifier. This is especially true when congress is in session or during inauguration.

        We elect people and send them to Washington. They may make trips back to their home states to keep in touch with their constituents but they really become part of the environment that they are surrounded with on a daily basis. They often buy their million dollar plus homes in Washington while keeping only token accommodations in their home states. (I don’t know if it’s true for all states but in some they can rent a room in a friend’s house and satisfy residency requirements.) Their families often get “Washington” related jobs like working for or being lobbyists.

        The reality is that they become a part of the community where they spend most of their time, where for all practical purposes they live. It’s where they shop for the needs of living. Their home states are just where they return to, to get the votes necessary to continue their new lifestyles.

        In this age of technology and instant electronic communications and big screen TVs why is it necessary to concentrate people physically in the same location in order for them to vote and make decisions? We have progressed way past teleconferencing. Secure communications are not only possible but being used extensively in some sectors.

        There has been a lot of talk about draining the swamp when it comes to Washington. How about leaving the swamp? Break up the club; send them closer to the constituents they are supposed to represent.

        Congress could be convened electronically as well as physically. Regions could be created that would serve several states. Initially, military installations could be converted to provide the secure meeting facilities for various regions. Civilian meeting places could be built as well. They could be constructed with suites suitable for elected officials who couldn’t make it home overnight. (Elected state representatives have done this for years.) This would encourage them to at least build their million and multi-million dollar homes in their home states. This would create jobs in their home states. On a very positive note it would bring elected officials home or at least closer to home. Close enough to drive home on weekends and hobnob with the local people they allegedly serve. They could mingle more with the hoi polloi and be more accessible.

        A Senator or House member doesn’t have to physically touch people in order to meet with them, though this might complicate things for foreign interests, lobbyists and those from financial institutions who like to schmooze and party with elected officials. There could be an increase in the number of lobbyists that would be needed to cover all the various regions.

        Meetings would still be convened at the Capitol for those who wanted to continue being there, since that would be one of the regions.

        Major corporations avoid having their leadership travel together so that in case of an accident all of a company’s leadership wouldn’t be together. Our leaders are already targets wherever they are. Shouldn’t they be spread out so that there is less chance of large numbers being wiped out at the same time during an attack or disaster? Obviously the number of potential targets would be increased as well but the effects of a successful attack would be less devastating. There are a lot of elected representatives in the line of succession that should not be close to one other geographically.

        There are pros and cons to most changes but it’s time to change the physical way that the business of democracy in the country is conducted. Dealing with the reality and possibilities of the time that we live in is way past due. One thing for certain—we need to make sure that the above scenario isn’t perceived as being a possibility for those with evil intent.