This Impeachment Thing

We are in the middle of a gut wrenching process of trying to impeach the president of the United States…..that is all the the news echoes day after day……

I need to let my readers know how I feel about this process.

I have been writing about the process in my other blog, In Saner Thought, but I have not been straight forward with my opinion on this process.

First do I think the president should be impeached?  Yes I do!  Why?  Because I feel that he is gaming the system for his benefit and not that of the country.

After all that said….

I kinda hope he comes out of this okay.

Why would I wish that?

That sometime down the road a Democrat will take office and he can do whatever he likes to the system….insult politicians, investigate political opponents, force corruption with foreign countries, etc.

If Trump walks on this then it will come back a bite the GOP sycophants in the ass…a position that many of them may favor these days.

I want to hear the whining by the sycophants like Gaetz, Jordan and Meadows….their performances ought to be Emmy worthy….just listen to their words….they have nothing to say about the evidence they only bitch about the process.

We can blame the rise of the Tea Party as the start of this breakdown in civility and order……nope….we can blame Newt and his band of radicals in 1994  as the beginning….the hatred for one party for the other began in word and deed with Newt.

In rolling out his proposal for a progressive agenda, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has repeatedly referenced Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” On one level that makes sense, since the “Contract with America” is arguably the only example most people can think of where a national political platform of sorts did not come from a presidential campaign. It also played a significant—though sometimes poorly understood—role in altering the trajectory of American politics, and thus it makes sense to reference it when setting out to alter that trajectory again.

A lot of what people remember about the Contract just isn’t so, and a lot of what was so is forgotten. It was not a conservative document so much as it was a targeted GOP play for the support of Ross Perot voters (as described in the book “Three’s a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and the Republican Resurgence” by Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone), and despite its poll-driven nature (touted by Gingrich at the time), its late release indicated it was less a play for broad political support than it was for shaping elite political discourse after an election Republicans knew they would win. At its core, it was the very essence of political gamesmanship, even as it paraded itself as a populist attack on the establishment.

Since those days it is hate for one party or the other and the people within those parties……

Our government is dysfunctional….and to blame it all on the Dems is disingenuous……Repubs have been equally to blame for this disunity…..and we can thank the Tea Pargty for making the sore of dysfunction spread like an all consuming rash on the skin of our nation.

Make no  mistake…it is HATRED for the other party…matters not the issues but rather the membership in one or the other.

It all began with the “Watergate Babies”….

For millions of Americans, from political analysts to readers confronting their morning newspapers, the dysfunction of today’s Congress is a disturbing mystery. The majority, which controls the agenda and schedule of the House, seems riven with division; the leadership seems bereft of methods or muscle for enforcing discipline; distrust pervades relations with Senate colleagues, and the relationship with the White House, controlled by the majority’s own party, is unpredictable and volatile. With the Republicans locked in seemingly intractable conflict with a minority focused on regaining power, the Congress has rarely been less productive or less well-regarded in the public’s perception.

It wasn’t always like this; in some ways, it was worse. For generations, the House was a secretive, hierarchical, tradition-bound institution that gave little regard or influence to newcomers. Power was concentrated so assiduously in the handful of committee chairs that even the elected leadership hesitated to challenge the old men with the gavel. From the dour Woodrow Wilson through the thundering Lyndon Johnson, the House lumbered along in its top-heavy, anachronistic style, incapable of competing with an executive branch that was increasingly agile and expansive, well-suited to modern mass communications, and aggregating power by virtue of its ability to act decisively.

I admit that I have read and been called so many insulting names over the years that I went against my best interests and started using derogatory terms about others in the government.

I regret that I sank to that level of intolerance but I will refrain when the others also refrain.

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Impeachment–Do Not Look To Nixon Or Clinton

These days the impeachment drama is on everybody’s lips…why?  Because it is all the MSM wants to report.

They, the media, like to use the Nixon impeachment process and at times the Clinton process to help explain what is going on….but this is wrong…they should be looking a bit further back in the history books to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson…..

This week, the fact-finding phase of the Trump impeachment inquiry officially ended. Reports were released, hearings were held, articles of impeachment are being drafted. Andrew Prokop helps us break it all down on this week’s episode of Impeachment, Explained.

Then, the impeachment analogue that most closely resembles what we are going through today isn’t Clinton or Nixon, it’s Andrew Johnson. Historian Brenda Wineapple, author of The Impeachers, helps us understand the trial that shaped our nation’s conception of what impeachment means.

Plus, how the GOP has become a definitively anti-Constitutional party.

You can subscribe to Impeachment, Explained on Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get podcasts.

I think if a person has not looked at all sides of the process then they are not informed just regurgitating crap from the media.

That is why I call it the “VOMITORIUM”…….

In case you cannot get to the audio…the US Senate has a paper out on the Johnson process…..

But in case you do not trust the Senate to be honest…..

the House voted 126 to 47 to impeach President Andrew Johnson, the culmination of a showdown between Johnson and Radical Republicans in the 40th Congress (1867–1869). The President’s leniency towards the former Confederate states threatened the Radicals’ more drastic southern policy seeking immediate citizenship and enfranchisement, as well as social and economic aid for freed slaves. As a result, Johnson regularly vetoed congressional Reconstruction legislation and Congress overrode his vetoes more than any other President. After failed attempts to introduce articles of impeachment against Johnson, and in an effort to protect like-minded members of his Cabinet, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in March 1867. The legislation barred the President from removing Cabinet officials appointed during his term in office without the Senate’s consent.

Read On

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Those Supreme Court Judges

These days it seems that every president has his dick in a knot over the choices of SCOTUS…..the Right accuses the Left of political stacking of the court and yet the Right is doing the same thing.

Sorry wrong is wrong…I know that is a unique perspective these days but I stand by it regardless of the “desires” of the interested politicos.

The selection process needs changing.

First, there should be term limits on judges…a life time free ride is not in the nation’s best interests.  My thought is a term should be 10 years maximum.

Second there should be NO politics involved or think tanks that pretend to care about the law…..judges move up through seniority.

Third, the judges must have had actual courtroom experience and not some nomination for a political favor.

Those changes would go a long way to fixing the system we now have for finding our Supreme Court judges….

While the Supreme Court is not a representative body, justices on that court have strong, well-developed and significantly different judicial philosophies and approaches to constitutional and statutory interpretation. Presidents openly admit that they make their nominations significantly based on these factors. Under the present system for nominating Supreme Court justices, voters in some elections have two or three times more influence over Supreme Court appointments than those in others.

This is anomalous and unfair because voters in one election usually have the same opportunity to elect government officers as those in another. But because a congressional statute fixes the size of the court at nine, some presidents will have the opportunity to nominate more Supreme Court justices than others, based on the happenstance of deaths or resignations. We think this is backwards: Each president should get an equal number of appointments per elected term and the size of the court should fluctuate over time as vacancies occur.

As it is now the court is being seen as a political institution and not a justice one….but that can be repair with a little work…..

Faced with at least a generation of conservative justices ruling against them, a growing number of Democrats are rallying around court-packing—that is, to add justices to the court—as a last-ditch solution. Pete Buttigieg, the technocratic and media-savvy mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was among the first presidential candidates to argue for Democrats to take the extraordinary step when they next have the political power to do so. “What we need to do is stop the Supreme Court from sliding toward being viewed as a nakedly political institution,” he said during a CNN town hall in March. “I’m for us contemplating whatever policy options will allow that to be possible.” He reiterated his support for it in an NBC News interview on Monday.

Depoliticizing the Supreme Court sounds like a laudable goal, but it’s a quixotic one. The justices will always play a major role in American governance. They will strike down and uphold legislation passed by duly elected lawmakers. They will weigh in on disputed elections. They will decide matters of national consequences. The question is whether the Supreme Court can still be independent and nonpartisan.

There should be nothing politic about choosing a justice but in recent years it has been about picking the “right” judges to oversee our government…..and the “right” judges depends on who you talk to….that should stop…..time to change the system of judge appointments…..

I still think that the seniority thing is the better way to do it and leave politics in the toilet where it belongs.

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

I Thank The Right

I would like to take this first moment to apologize to my followers of GSFP for being a lazy toad and not posting more…..I shall try to be more diligent since I am an opinionated SOB this site should be loaded with my opinions and observations.

I would like to begin by say THANK YOU to the Right for doing what I tried to do oh so many years ago.

A little background might be helpful here….In my younger years I was a hard Leftist and worked tirelessly to try and carve out a piece of the American society to help promote a division that would assist in leftist ideas take hold in the electorate.

I and my comrades were not very successful.

Back in the 1950s Wisconsin Senator McCarthy warned the nation of what was being attempted by those “Damn Commies”…..but his warning went mostly ignored because this nation was a unified entity and no matter the game “Tailgunner Joe” played  the people saw it for what it was…..BS.

But that was in the days before the spread of social media the prime mover of FAKE NEWS……

All I can do is say Thank You again….for the people on social media did what I and others tried to do…..they have divided this country along “tribal” lines…..

Those divisions were always there but again the country was a unified entity and withstood the attempts to divide the country…..

Then along came the Newt and his gang of fire brands.  This started the country down the path of division and it has continued unabated since 1994.


What I tried to do unsuccessfully the MSM has done and the Millennials are the voter that I tried to sculpt…..

AXIOS shows that my attempts have grown into the movement I  envisioned…..

Young Americans continue to lose faith in capitalism and embrace socialism, according to a new YouGov/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey of more than 2,000 Americans 16 years and older.

Why it matters: Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed democratic socialist, is one of the top presidential candidates in the 2020 Democratic field. His flagship health care proposal, Medicare for All, has driven the national conversation and moved the Democratic Party significantly to the left — even among candidates like Elizabeth Warren who consider themselves capitalists.

The big picture: 50% of millennials and 51% of Generation Z have a somewhat or very unfavorable view of capitalism — increases of 8 and 6 percentage points from last year. Meanwhile, the share of millennials who say they are “extremely likely” to vote for a candidate who identifies as a socialist doubled.

This observation from the state that gave the country Joe McCarthy….Wisconsin….on why the young are looking beyond the system we have now.

Bernie Sanders may be the public face of American socialism, but if you really want to understand its exploding popularity, you need to understand its pull among millennials. And not just newly-elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Poll after recent poll shows one out of three young Americans identify as either Socialist or Democratic Socialist. Fewer than half, 45 percent, view capitalism positively — a 12-point decline in the past two years. America’s youth seems to be making a speedy left turn, and at a pace that surprises even longtime members of the vanguard.

“It’s gone from being a subculture to a movement that has real relevance,” said Bhaskar Sunkara, the founder and editor of Jacobin magazine. “There’s a political ideology out there — not just Democratic Socialism — but a left-wing populist rhetoric that really does capture what people are feeling.”

This is good to see….that all my hard work back in the day did not go unrewarded…..just sad that I will not be there for the final chapter of this drama.

Peace Out!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

Remembering The Nuremburg Trials

The Second World War has ended and the Allies are putting the remaining Nazis to trial….those that did not take the easy way out by committing suicide.

The trials were show trials for the world…the spin it was to help the world heal from the war but in reality it was nothing short of retaliation and revenge.

So now I ask…was justice served?

Do not get me wrong I am not saying that these people are guiltless….but rather that the trials were not carried out in an democratic and unbiased way.

Yes these accused were bastards and barbaric bunch….but I think the trials should have been handled in another way to prove that democracy and the rule of law prevailed.

For instance the judges were from Allied countries….UK, USA, USSR and France….4 judges and 4 alternates……the victors if you will.  A case could be made the the judges were biased.

This was just a low key Versailles Treaty….it is designed to inflict revenge on a defeated people…just as the WW1 treaty did to the German people.

“If in the end there is a generally accepted view that Nuremberg was an example of high politics masquerading as law, then the trial instead of promoting may retard the coming of the day of world law.”

Was the trials as fair as they were billed to be?

The Nuremberg War Trial has a strong claim to be considered the most significant as well as the most debatable event since the conclusion of hostilities. To those who support the trial it promises the first effective recognition of a world law for the punishment of malefactors who start wars or conduct them in bestial fashion. To the adverse critics the trial appears in many aspects a negation of principles which they regard as the heart of any system of justice under law.

This sharp division of opinion has not been fully aired largely because it relates to an issue of foreign policy upon which this nation has already acted and on which debate may seem useless or, worse, merely to impair this country’s prestige and power abroad. Moreover, to the casual newspaper reader the long-range implications of the trial are not obvious. He sees most clearly that there are in the dock a score of widely known men who plainly deserve punishment. And he is pleased to note that four victorious nations, who have not been unanimous on all post-war questions, have, by a miracle of administrative skill, united in a proceeding that is overcoming the obstacles of varied languages, professional habits, and legal traditions. But the more profound observer is aware that the foundations of the Nuremberg trial may mark a watershed of modern law.

Further Information:

Before some person decides to attack let me say….I do believe there should have been trials but that the judges should have been from Neutral countries during the war like Switzerland or Sweden…..

Any thoughts?

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

What Has Happened To Our Middle Class?

This is a fun subject for an aging radical as myself…..why?

Just the changing definition of the term “Middle Class”….originally it meant the bourgeoisie not the workers……but now the table is turning and they are same class…that is if you know anything about “classes”.

the bourgeoisie

the middle classes
(in Marxist thought) the ruling class of the two basic classes of capitalist society, consisting of capitalists, manufacturers, bankers, and other employers. The bourgeoisie owns the most important of the means of production, through which it exploits the working class.
And yet the media has turned the two separate classes into the same class.

Everyone loves the middle class. Everyone claims to be middle-class—some to put a gloss on their sketchy escutcheons, others to dodge chastisement for their awkward riches. But in fact both the socioeconomic reality and the concept of the middle class have been turned on their heads and, at the same time, trivialized into a mere lifestyle choice.

Economically, the middle classes were once proprietors, self-employed owners of property and their own labor. Morally, they were the equivalent of “solid citizens”: decent, hard-working, law-abiding, temperate, proper, staid, virtuous, and—well, moral. The qualifications for being middle class have gotten a whole lot looser, to say the least.

The European term “middle classes” originally served to describe merchants, tradesmen, investors, and skilled craftsmen. The habitat of these classes was the walled city—the burg, bourg, or borough—hence their appellation, les bourgeois. The bourgeoisie occupied a middle ground between the nobility and the lower classes of peasants and servants.

What Middle Class?

To illustrate this change……the Brookings Institute tries to explain what is happening to America’s Middle Class……

Brookings officially launched a new initiative on the Future of the Middle Class. Through this initiative, we will publish research, analysis, and insights that are motivated by a desire to improve the quality of life for those in America’s middle class and to improve upward mobility into its ranks. We have already wrestled with how we define this group, considered its changing racial composition, and called upon experts to outline major policies geared toward improving its fate. But why all of this attention? Here are seven of the reasons we are worried about the American middle class.

Seven reasons to worry about the American middle class

This study is talking about the traditional working class not the owners of the production….

This combination just makes it easier for the media to sell its ideas to the American voter…..ideas that benefit no one but the corporations that control everything.

Learn Stuff!

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Federalist Paper #29

I have waited for a long time to see if all these so-called scholars would hit upon something from the days of our founding as a country.

Now we have had another round of violence and the result is the usual reaction. The rash of shootings and the debate and opinion spewed on guns is running full tilt boogie….as usual lots of talk and no action…..the same talk that has been raging for decades….the same inaction…the same lip service.

I recently wrote a piece that I said would be my last word on guns….well no surprise….I LIED!

But before those gun nuts hiding in the ink of blogs let me assure you that this is just a reminder of what a Founding Father had to say about guns. Remember this is what a Founder wrote……a historic document…..Federalist Paper No. 29……not me!

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.” Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Please read it before going off half cocked.

But as usual Americans are too lazy to read the information they want the short version……

The Constitution does not guarantee the ownership of an assault weapon.

Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

8 years ago I wrote a post on why I thought the 2nd was added…..

I have said many times that I am pro-gun…I have many weapons and still I believe that we need a more intelligent set of gun laws.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

“Lego Ergo Scribo”