Bill of Rights
Pilgrim #3: Roger Williams
Another way of relating to the natives, somewhat between that of Morton and Brewster, is that of Roger Williams. An attempt was also made to deport Williams, as was done to Thomas Morton, though he was a teacher at Salem, and Plymouth was too picky to find a Pastor. Williams escaped from the Massachusetts congregation into the wilderness. He is the founder of Rhode Island and Providence, the first Baptist in America, and the cause as much as any single person of the American experiment with the freedom of Religion. Williams bought his property, or received it as a gift from “His friend Cannonicus, sachem of the Narragansett.” (Willison, p. 377). Providence, and later Rhode Island, became a refuge for those fleeing the religious persecution of the Puritans and Plymouth Saints, as these had fled the Anglicans, and they the Romans, and now we the Baptists! Williams “challenged the validity of the Massachusetts Bay charter, which gave the authorities power to appropriate native American lands without compensation and to establish a uniform faith and worship among the colonists. “He asserted that only direct purchase from the native Americans constituted a valid title to the land, and he denied the right of the government to punish what were considered to be religious infractions” (Microsoft Encarta, 2005). Williams wrote to Bradford:
James has no more right to give away or sell Massasoit’s lands, and cut and carve his country, than Massasoit has to sell King James’ kingdom or send Indians to colonize Warwickshire” (Ibid, p. 502).
Williams was expelled from both the Plymouth and the Salem communities for insisting upon the liberty of conscience regarding religion. In this, he followed Robert Browne, who wrote of civil authorities:
To compel Religion, to plant churches by Power, and to force a Submission to ecclesiastical government by laws and penalties, belongeth not to them, neither yet to the church.
As Madison would later say it, in his essay on religious tax or establishment, these things, which are natural rights regarding government, are because we owe a higher duty to the Creator, and cannot give up to any church or government even if we were to try, as to save our lives. What is a right toward our fellows is due to our duty to God. Daniel during the Babylonian exile is a fine example. Socrates would make fun of us, who, as though we had completed dealing with our own self government, we now had leisure to set others aright. The government of Providence Rhode Island was “based upon complete religious toleration and upon the separation of Church and state,” though Jefferson was the first to use that phrase. A documentary film shows descendants of these first Baptists persuading Madison and Jefferson that religious liberty of the First Amendment is possible.
The Baptists or Anabaptist, were established in Britain by John Smyth, who later joined the Mennonites. The are at the root of the American Quaker and Amish, the Seventh Day Adventist, Jehova Witness and Mormon. They are also the cause of the american religion of a “personal” Jesus and the emphasis upon the scripture that one must be born again. These are called re-baptizers because they became confused upon rejecting infant baptism, they came to quarrel on such things as sprinkling vrs. immersion. Encarta writes:
Accepting the practice of baptism by immersion, Williams was Baptized by a layman in 1639; he subsequently baptized a small group and thus founded the first Baptist Church in America. Later in that same year he withdrew from the church he had founded and declared himself to be a seeker, that is, one who accepts the fundamental beliefs of Christianity but does not profess a particular creed.
Indeed, we hold that the creeds are particular legislations, while Jesus is not a lawgiver at all. The ridiculousness and cruelty of Christian othodoxies are rooted in this confusion, and those who think it think we say there is no law.
Baptism is a mystery. Nor is it bought with a profession, but a transformation of the soul and its original ordering of priorities, a going through death with Christ to be reborn, to which the practices and rituals awaken, remind and order us. We do not know its relation to the nature of the soul and to other manifestations, such as the Elysian mysteries. Does the universal soul witness the truth of the Christ, or do the Sacraments established by convention not image mysteries of the soul? According to Justin Martyr, Socrates, who knew the mysteries of ascent and descent, was a “Christian,” though not one made by man.
Consider even the song of the band the “Who,” called “The Seeker.”
Now you see what it means to begin the Eagles song “Paradise” with: “She came from Providence / The one in Rhode Island.”
#16-1464 to Void the 2016 Russian-U.S. Election
…On our news, we have only heard about how the CIA has Vlad directly ordering cyber attacks on the elections. And they talk about our response. #16-1464 is the Revived Re-vote case, to void the 2016 election due to Ruskies meddling to elect Donney and co.
Elections are assumed by the constitution, fundamental, and, we say, “think the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it?” They say, “no precedent,” we say it is unprecedented. The case is based on Article IV.4, plus things said in the Classic and Yarbrough cases, which are about the suppression of the black vote. Federalist 68 indicates that the electoral college was to provide a remedy should some foreign power raise some “creature of their own” to the presidency. Mark Small has written up the case, and it is granted mandamus, with a response from the Trump-Russophiles due by July 7. For my Amicus Brief- which is a letter that any citizen is allowed to submit as a friend of the court, Amicus meaning Amigos, friends (in Latin rather than Latin-American). I tried to write only things I could add, without repeating much that is in the case. The truth is that when the Trump-Russians interfere with political association, speech and free political action, violating two clauses of the First and then the Fifth amendment liberty clause-when they do this, they leave a trail, and collusion is demonstrated in the very attempt to silence free opposition. This is a whole un-mined category which coheres with the other categories of evidence to “prove” what is by now so obvious the few doubt it: Russia elected Trump for us, and we do not know their full perfidious purpose even yet, but we do not want to find out! Hence we are asking the court to provide a remedy such as a re-vote. And if some think that this will cause “civil war,” to have a new election, we see who was against elections, we see that fascism rising is what will cause civil war, and we see the fourth clause of the second sentence of the Declaration as well, which means that we are not required to give up on republican or free self-government. My draft is at mmcdonald777Wordpress, with three sevens- my secret site where I tell the truth about my other site, and its more fundamental purposes. I am hoping for criticism and feedback on the draft before I print it, and send it in.
“Thomas Jefferson lives!”
– John Adams, July 4, 1826.
Why Are the Americans Asleep to the Surveillance of the Internet?
As usual, the Americans are just not thinking it through. Everyone welcomes this “internet of things,” assuming it is unopposable or something. We just had an election turned by foreign manipulation of the internet, and fascism has been rising in America, while we all just go on about our business. A few literat-ures talk about Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s “the Handmaid’s Tale,” but for the most part, our noses are in the dirt and we walk about in an Oxy induced daze, dumb as a box of rocks. Awake! Your liberty is being destroyed, and indeed we can do something about it! We do not have to let this happen because there are internet billionaires and dark forces over drug gangs flushed with the proceeds of our vices. There are in fact billionaires who can think, and do have hearts and souls. We could install an honest internet TOMORROW. And “they” – who are probably some logarithm by now- still cannot control the American voter completely,
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the destruction of our security in our houses, persons, papers and effects, and this is fundamental law. The internet of things is illegal. “No person shall… is how this amendment begins. Laws can prevent rich companies from supplanting our government and constitution if the Constitution itself is thought to not forbid this. But it only need be argued that if, for example, Duterte is allowed access to my phone calls, this will effect government, and liberty cannot then be secured. Look how they argued that growing one’s own weed and smoking it “effects” interstate commerce (Reich v. Ashcroft). The cell towers are tracking us are they? How bout if we cut them down? These companies are remarkably responsive, though, to public opinion when it effects their bottom line. The bosses want now infinite surveillance of employees, do they- How ’bout we stop working till they back the f off! The people are enough, too, to trample Congress and push cell towers over- how expensive will that be for the corporate panel and shareholder value”? Put that in your logarithm and crunch it!
And did this not all start when we gave companies the right to make us piss in a cup to see if we smoked any weed? What would be the answer of James Otis in 1774, of Thomas Jefferson and the generation of 1776? Well, let us give them the answer for which they are asking.
Revive the Re-vote: Declare 2016 Elections Void due to Russian Interference
Jeroll M. Sanders has done an ingenious work in preparing the Supreme Court case # 16-907, which was denied by the Supreme Court without explanation. I am repeatedly in admiration of her direct and relaxed common sense in stating profound and trenchant points transcending legalese, and recommend reading her write-up of the case, which I have just read entire for the first time today. Especially ingenious is her basing the case on Article IV and on the Twelfth Amendment, points that are both true and difficult to see, though obvious once stated. She has run for Mayor, and receives my endorsement of the CLC for this and higher office. The Appeals court denied the case because no precedent was provided, for events that are in fact unprecedented, though without recourse these have become the way of our world quite quickly. Supreme Court precedent in election cases outside civil rights issues are very sparse: the question has simply never arisen before. Our constitution contains perennial principles that are quite sufficient to meet circumstances that are new, and there is no reason that new circumstances do not call for setting precedents. For surely an election determined by foreign invasion through the internet is not a constitutional election, or not what the founders had in mind by “election.”
The Appeals court also alleges that the political branches of the U. S. government have made no such determination, and for the court to determine that the United States was “invaded,” triggering the Article IV requirement that the national government defend the states from foreign invasion, would “disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibilities of other branches of government, and would result the court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.” But what if, as Sanders indeed indicates, the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had in fact concluded that such an invasion aiming to influence the elections did in fact occur? Ms. Sanders cites Mark Morell, the Deputy Director of the central intelligence agency, as stating on CNN that Russia’s meddling in this election is “the political equivalent of 9/11.” I would have added, had I been permitted, that General Hayden had called the Russian meddling, “the greatest covert operation in history.” In fact, had I been permitted to write an Amicus brief, a letter citizens may submit to inform the court regarding a pending case, I would have suggested bringing the CIA right into the Supreme Court, both to tell the court what could be told and to tell them there was more that could not be told to protect “sources and methods,” but that their conclusion was and is that there had been significant Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
And had I been permitted, I would have suggested a third scenario to add to the two presented by Ms. Sanders: Wikileaks, soon after the case was denied by the Appeals Court, revealed that our own government knew of vulnerabilities in our new spy-marketing tech that leaves these open to hackers, but that the agencies decided not to protect us so that they might themselves exploit these vulnerabilities. My own brother had just accused me of insanity, quite seriously, for saying that, as he summarizes in caricature, “the T.V. is watching me.” After the Wikileak became public, I offered to accept his apology, when he delivers it. What was once madness is now common sense. Then he assured me that it is only the newest “smart” tech instruments, and assured me too, as did the agent he sent to make sure it was safe to seize me if possible, that it is only used for “marketing” purposes. And what is an election? How similar to marketing? We will never have another free election if we cannot restore the security in our persons, papers, houses and effects guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution. And this shows the reason for such security: people like nations have enemies bent on using every bit of information they can skim only against their targeted person. And in fact what occurred in the 2016 election is that the Russians bought and hacked into every bit of “marketing” information, passively collecting data, and then used this to target interference again through our computers, as through Kaspersky, which handles four hundred million security accounts right from Moscow, or some similar method- I have no particular evidence against Kaspersky except the sort of attacks which walk right past their security onto my home computer, namely Russian and Trumpster attacks. Targeted interference might be either mechanical, operational, or intimidation. What if one’s words are simply allowed less publicity, and one were to do this to 25% of the words of one’s political opponent, while expanding the publicity of fake news by 25%? I would have added this and similar information in an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, except I was prevented by at least three ostensibly Russian attacks including a death threat, and forced to cease working on the computer after February 4th, 2017. A documented death threat came from Trumpsters January 28th, and this is right there on Twitter, excepting the tweet redacted by the sender after I identified it as technically a death threat. But the most serious came while commenting on a letter to be sent to President Obama a few days before the inauguration, when first prostitutes and then a scary face with the word “Assasin” came up under the page I was writing on to take over my computer screen. Facebook has commented that given modern marketing techniques, it would be quite easy to throw an election this way, and a report on NPR (Probably from the BBC) confirms that the Philippine election was in fact turned this way- spy marketing tech collecting information and then targeted interference. Indeed, we will in fact have to choose between this “internet of things” and free government with free elections, at least until we figure out a way to have both. The oblivious Americans do not even realize that this is the choice, and plunge headlong into a world that makes perhaps the worst imaginable and surely the most pervasive tyranny a mathematical necessity.
It is beyond my capacities to explain why the police have ignored my complaints, even as stand in amazement at what my Trumpster relatives have done of late, and these are people I have known for fifty years. The police would not even look at the computer to see if there really was a death threat, and did not provide the protection needed to secure the right of a citizen to continue political work guaranteed by his liberty, as required by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rather, everything I have said has been as if only used against me. As described in part in a previous blog, my Trumpster relatives, having tried to have me “treated” for the mental illness of not being oblivious to these new things, and for trying to warn them of the dangers of tyranny and of this tyranny, drew up a perjurous complaint saying that I, who had done nothing wrong and even had said not a single thing thing that is false, be seized as a “danger to myself and others.” The writer of the complaint demonstrably and intentionally lied, and part of her charge was literally that I was working on a Supreme Court Case. I had said so when I was prevented from continuing my work, which I consider quite important. The instigating relative, though, an Uncle, was careful to try to avoid demonstrable perjury. I will ask him in court if he was influenced by anyone in the Trump organization, since his efforts happen to coincide with Russian and Trumpster efforts aiming at the result that I “stop doing what I am “doing now.” That message came over my phone right when I was receiving the tweet string that knocked me off the internet and prevented me from continuing to work on this Supreme Court Case. I did not look long enough to see if this string contained a fourth death threat, but it included many things I had said that angered the Russians and white supremacists, as well as personal information used to hurt and let one know that they are not just on the internet, but in your phone and in your drugstore and anywhere else the new tech allows them entry bought or forced. I have seen the new world that is emerging, perhaps a little more closely than most. These things are quite demonstrable, and plenty of reason to ask the court to reconsider. I thought we might gain an unanimous decision, rather than have to rely on the partisan 5-4 majority, as this is far beyond a partisan issue.
Orwell’s 1984 in 2017: Truth and Delusion
If you seriously cannot tell which is reality and which is illusion, I suggest you look at who is persecuting people for mere speech. And here we see the surprisingly deep importance of the principle of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I keep forgetting that there are Trump supporters, and perhaps people who seriously cannot tell, as well as people who due to an ethical failure do not care or are simply willing to pervert the truth for baser interests.
In Orwell’s 1984, there are of course people who believed that government, or, there are fools. I recall Orwell’s description of his neighbor’s family, where all were as if wholly deluded, the father, mother and two children, all avid supporters willing to live wholly in the world Big Brother had created for them. There are also people who from fear do not consider truth, and of course a third sort, people who know well the difference, and for some ungodly reason are willing to impose the tyranny and its delusion onto everyone. That is how the domestic life of North Korea appears to us out here in the West. But seriously, who knows? Are there not “two sides to every story,” and did you not know that “truth is relative?” “We have our culture and they theirs,” and did you not know that ethical truth is culturally relative? “Who knows?” or rather, swallow this: if we lived in North Korea, Kim Jong Un would truly be the “Great Father!” Sarcasm is important, and does not, sometimes, come across through the written word. I keep forgetting that there really are Trump supporters. Trump has people willing to believe his fake news, and also to believe his accusation that any criticism of him is fake news. Our press struggles nobly to achieve for us objective clarity in the face of the stupidest lies. Many Americans seriously admire a good sales pitch regardless of the truth. Trump also has people who seriously cannot tell the difference, and, again, third, people who know the truth of the story quite well and are willing to produce for him fake news. And look now across America: Our democracy is seriously having difficulty telling the difference.
2=2=4, and it does not equal 5. I had a great professor who once mentioned Orwell, and we, the students, were surprised that he would descend to discuss a novelist. He said he liked the work quite well, 1984, but took issue with Orwell’s presentation of human nature as being that malleable. But this was before the age of the Internet. If we do not act now, the orchestrated opinions may soon be those of We the people. It is perhaps an ethical problem, or, at root it is an ethical question: Are you willing to pervert your theoretical mind and common sense for the sake of bodily self interest? Will you do this if they threaten you? Or do they only need to pay you? And how much? For, like the joke about the prostitution of the wife of the man offered a “million dollars” to let the seducer sleep with his wife, we have already established that she is a prostitute, the only remaining question is the price. Read Machiavelli’s play Mandragola. And do you have enough money yet, America?
But sometimes there is a serious difficulty about truth and a mirror image, which after all does have the same features as the true picture. Birds often are seen trapped in an illusion that the bird in the mirror is indeed another bird, because they have never yet seen such an example, and it takes a while to learn that such an illusion is even possible. Who would intentionally set up a mirror to confuse me in this way? Can we not just trust that the Lord would not make things so difficult for common sense? Do you mean, Mr. McDonald, to say that we really do have to consider such things about the president of the United States? Are we not obligated by the grandeur of the office not to question? Are we not obligated by the chain of command? Yes, indeed, this is not North Korea, yet, and every American citizen has a right to work on a Supreme Court case, to support impeachment when it in the nation’s interest, to speak freely and to ask questions freely. Trump had never read the constitution, and that is why he so often trips over it, and the Trumpsters do not care, and that is un-American!
But this does not change the truth: Those who say 2=2=5 are lying. The philosopher can always be presented as mad, because the people cannot, without a great natural intelligence and a life of toil devoted to the truth, understand him, and, amid their life absorbed in practical concerns, they do not care. Again that is why our constitution is so important, and free speech so fundamental. I will add that that is why the abuse of our courts and the issue of perjury is so fundamental. I was taken from my driveway and held for 20 days without even getting a single word in to a judge, until a court appointed lawyer gained an independent evaluation by a psychologist who did not have an interest in filling a bed or getting me addicted to their drugs, and this convinced a judge of the rather obvious truth that they did not have a right nor any legitimate power to seize me 20 days prior. The abuse of our mental health system is, along with perjury, very serious, a very important development, because this system needs to be in place and honest for those who truly need it, that is, for genuine emergencies. I have seen it, the courts and our mental health system, corrupted by Trumpsters for political reasons, and this is simply not ok, that is, assuming that we do see something truly wrong with the way of life under Kim Jong Un, and we are not to assume it is simply our cultural preference. I am pressing charges of perjury, but it is quite likely that the police will be told to do nothing, and that the officer will again say that the question is “above his pay grade.” And it is perjury: When certain Tumpster relatives learned by experience that they could not have me “treated” by compulsion unless I were a “danger to myself or others,” they simply lied to say I was. We have an uncle who has a PhD in “Education,” and he was influenced too by some “psychologist,” likely a Trumpster, and perhaps someone in our government who has an interest in my being certified insane: I do not know, and fear to raise these questions so as not to appear “paranoid.” But someone sure does have an interest in presenting as insane, or a mere “conspiracy theorist,” anyone to whom it has become apparent the extent to which Russia threw the 2016 election. Again, if you seriously cannot tell which is truth and which illusion, I suggest you look to those suppressing the questions, to those suppressing free speech, for I was seized in my driveway while the Supreme Court Case #16-907 to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference through the internet was moving through the courts, I having done nothing wrong, not a thing I do not have a right to do, having threatened no one illegally, nor even said a single thing that is false, but for mere speech. One can always tweak and twist a word, and then forbid the accused to explain. The limed bird, remember, the more you struggle to free yourself, the more you will be stuck, if only we use everything you say only against you, will not listen, and insist it is you who will not listen, while it is we who are entering your world to determine how things shall be for you. Liberty is fundamental, and when one has violated the rights of no other, it is the obligation of government to leave him alone. This is fundamental law in America still, the principles of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Third assertion of the Second sentence of our Declaration: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The purpose of government is to secure rights, and so again, since it is apparently difficult, when one has not violated the rights of another, government has no purpose and must leave him alone.
But in the end, and in “this world,” these questions are determined not by equations on a blackboard, but by power. We must take a stand, or see free government perish from this earth. I can blog, and have a wonderful time, and you can read, dwelling here with the ideas, if you have leisure, but in the end, they control the visibility and access to my writings through the internet, because we have allowed this to occur. The Resistance can tweet all day, but in the end it is on Twitter, and Twitter is being monitored and controlled, and by someone other than “We the people.” They can win because they have money and power, and we are not taking a stand.
IMPEACH TRUMP! House Judiciary Committee
Below are the House Judiciary Committee members responsible for Drawing Articles of Impeachment.
The Committee System is not in the Constitution, so any member can begin the motion, but the committee is the usual way we do it.
House Democrats can start the impeachment process if the Republicans are too blind and slavish. We tried to void the 2016 elections due to Russian interference and election fraud, but our efforts were interfered with and the case was denied by the court without explanation. It is apparently obviously constitutional then to have foreign interference determine the outcome of an election, sending us headlong into confusion and giving ascent to fascism to the delight of Vladimir Putin. The case was very interesting, based on Article IV of the Constitution, the requirement that the national government protect the states from foreign invasion. This means that I am not the only one who realizes that we have been under foreign invasion through the internet. American flaws allowed this to occur: Our own corruption, fear, love of money and racism. Our corruption has allowed organized crime to ascend to a place of honor in public opinion, with tentacles in every money-making and now every political matter. Our own love of money granted supreme power to corporate interests, so that we ignored our own Fourth Amendment to allow spy-marketing, and now the “internet of things,” which no one has the foresight to question. Our fear of terrorism has allowed our FBI/ETC to use the spy-marketing system to spy without limit, and we are left to just hope there is no corruption is our government or hacking of our systems, in which case all our spying will be used by the bad guys. And our own racism has allowed the fascist leaning elements of the American polity, such as the KKK, to enter legitimate politics, all with the blessing of our good republicans, who just know Hillary would have been the worst thing that could happen to America (Sarcasm). Tyranny or fascism is what will occur if we allow these tendencies to proceed.
The grounds for impeachment are, possibly treason, but certainly Bribery (emoluments), High Crimes (election fraud) and too many misdemeanors to count. The violation of the oath of office occurred just after the election, when Mr. Spicer intimidated the press, violating the free speech clause of the first amendment. Mr. Bannon intimidated the press more seriously later in the week. I have seen intimidation defended on twitter, as “free speech,” so little do we understand our Constitution. The executive of course cannot intimidate the press without violating the First Amendment, but free speech does not protect slander, libel, false advertising, perjury or pornography. And as with yelling fire in a crowded theater, when speech is an action, such as in a death threat, it is a crime, which is called assault. Intimidation interfering with the courts is of course a rather serious crime, o at least once was, in the pre-Trump America. Every manipulation of the media in an election is election fraud, and far more serious than false advertising in business- which is illegal and often prosecuted. “The Pope supports Trump,” remember, and Hillary is, according to the National Enquirer just before the election, influenced by and in league with the Russians (sarcasm again). Trump was proud of and openly admitted to much of this, such as the public intimidation of Meghan Kelly. His supporters may see nothing wrong with this, so long as he is a “winner.” The do not value honest and integrity in business, but rather appearance and “winning.” The list of Russian ties in his campaign- Flynn, Page, Tillerson, Kirchner, etc. keeps growing, while every charge rolls off him like a Teflon Don. As in a mob trial, when jury tampering preempts years of FBI efforts, we need to get at the root cause with some serious and imaginative speculation at the highest levels on the part of those who have access to particulars, the facts unseen by us common folk at the other end of the radio news. Is Congress truly prepared to hold hearings for a year and do nothing while the world totters on the brink of nuclear war? Are the decent Republicans going to be able to control the presidency, or is the fascist element preparing to re-emerge? Why wait to see? The grounds for impeachment far exceed the articles against Nixon, who apparently never thought of snowing the die-hard republicans with the mere words “fake news” and “no evidence.”
I cannot believe that the Supreme Court case was simply dismissed, as this seemed to be our best hope for turning things around, confusing as it may have been to have a revote. We suggested bringing the CIA right into the Supreme Court to explain just what happened, or as much as could be explained in order to save our nation and our constitution without compromising sources and methods, and perhaps the court would have just had to trust them on some points. Why this did not occur is simply beyond me, but like the interference I personally experienced and the failure of government at any level to respond, it has the look of Teflon, or the look and feel of jury tampering, where intimidation assures that the Machiavellians will be untouchable in the root of their power because, like Grimm’s Miller in the story of the wolf and seven kids, “truly, men are like that” See the previous blog “On the Fear of Death”) Again, do they mean to say that foreign influence in our elections is obviously constitutional because there is no precedent? That we must simply proceed, doing the best we can with such results?
The grounds for impeachment are discussed in more detail in previous blogs here on this WordPress website. Why no member of the House has moved to impeach is also simply beyond me, but I do not know how Teflon works either.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee
115th Congress
| Majority | Minority |
|---|---|
|
|
Sources: H.Res. 6 (Chair), H.Res. 45 (D) and H.Res. 51 (R)
From Wikipedia
First Amendment First
So, the Trumpsters now control the executive branch to some extent, and have openly begun to control the media with intimidation. We need to secure the First Amendment first, by re-opening the media and the internet. Some very odd things have been occurring on Twitter which demonstrate Trumpster control of that media. Perhaps a free bazillionair will see the opportunity to begin a competitor that promises not to allow naked Russian chicks and hackers popping in behind ones pages. Then we can get on with real American politics through this thing.
Hey Putin, get out of the Ukraine!
Impeachment II: Procedure and the Constitution
In the United States, no man is above the law, and this is secured at the top by the constitutional provisions for the impeachment of the president. The procedure is drawn from 3 or 4 places in the Constitution. The president can be impeached and removed for “Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”(II.4). The House of Representatives holds the “sole power of impeachment (I.2),” and by a majority vote, introduces articles of impeachment. These have in the recent past been drawn up by the judicial committee, but the committee system is not from the constitution, but tradition. Impeachment here refers to the accusation, which is then sent to the higher body, the Senate, for trial (I.3). The Chief Justice of the Supreme court presides over the trial, replacing the Vice President, who usually presides over the Senate (I.3). Two thirds, or here 67 Senators voting for conviction are required for removal. This may seem a high bar, but in the perjury charge against President Clinton, impeachment failed by a narrow margin, and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson failed by only one vote. President Nixon resigned, as Mr. Trump might, facing nearly certain conviction. Nixon was impeached for using the office of the presidency to obstruct the investigation into the plumbers break in at the Democratic Party headquarters. The second article was that he had abused his use of the FBI, CIA and IRS, violating the constitutional rights of citizens, and by establishing the plumbers as a secret investigative agency in the White House. He was also charged, in the third article, with defying the committee of Congress by refusing to produced the subpoenaed tapes, where, famously, he claimed executive privilege to withhold the tapes, but the Supreme Court decided that executive privilege did not cover hiding ones own guilt, but only national security or other crucial interests that are a legitimate part of the executive office.
We would recommend the following articles be considered from among the vast store, and we focus on the comprehensive issues and the truth about what is occurring, rather than the smaller matters, which may indeed be a part of the impeachment, but taken by themselves may not succeed.
I Election fraud has been committed by rewarding the spread of false news and intimidating the press surrounding the U.S. elections of November 9, 2016, a high crime. A foreign government may also have been invited to interfere and may have been rewarded for interfering in the U.S. election. The internet was used in a comprehensive manner to interfere with the voters themselves, especially in the swing states. The Electoral College was then prevented from considering, as is their job according to the Constitution as explained in Federalist 68. 26 reasons for charging Mr. Trump with election fraud are presented in a previous blog.
II. The press has been intimidated with threats as just occurred this past weekend, when Mr. Spicer told the press there would be “consequences,” and the press was called the most dishonest group of persons ever (neglecting tyrants). This is a violation of the free speech clause of our constitution and of the oath of office taken just days before, a high crime.
III. Bribery is committed already, as the emoluments clause forbids receiving payments or loans from foreign governments.
IV. Constitutional procedures have been interfered with, as the attempt to bring the election fraud before the Supreme court in order to postpone the inauguration.
Treason is narrowly defined (III,iii), and requires confession in open court or the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act- a bit more than a wink and a nod. But if Russian interference in the election was invited or encouraged, this may be treason.
Detailed reasoning has been presented on the issue of election fraud in previous blogs on this website. The newness of the internet and Russian control of the internet has allowed this to occur, as these are simply not the results of a legitimate election or election process.
To repeat, the delivery of our presidency through illegitimate election to one incapable of the office is a blessing to our enemies that may well have been intended. The immediate result for our nation will be the expansion of the war against ISIS to parties with whom we are not at at war, and the intended destruction of many of our sons and daughters. Domestic tyranny is also likely to result, as this president has praised the methods of the tyrant Duterte in the Philippines and the tyrant Putin in Russia, under the excuse of an unprecedented war on crime. Civil unrest is a certainty, and civil war a definite possibility. The security of our nation therefore, and not only considerations of Justice, requires the immediate impeachment of Donald Trump.
One impeached may be subject to indictment, but is by impeachment itself subject only to removal from office ((II.4). In this case, that may be blessing for Mr. Trump, to be removed from an office for which he is unprepared, by peaceful and constitutional procedure. The illusion that by this we violate an election or fail to “give him a chance,” as would be required in an election that was without fraud and foreign interference, simply are not true in the present instance, a national crisis.
Constitution Man
…Son, what I do for work is not your business. I am a U.S. citizen dedicated to upholding all oaths of office to obey our constitution- but there is a virtual superhero, in the realm of the Invisible Republic, where lake Woebegone and text wrecks are more real than video games and English teachers like Ann Kurzon are heroines and conversations can last thousands of years. Our Time warp portal can be entered sometimes through NPR, and sometimes through the spaces between the bookshelves and the isles in the public library, the last bastion of privacy, until the Pseudo-FBI took them over in a previous episode. And you thought the Texas Ranger from 1958 was cool! But bullets bounce off us because we do not quite exist even in the virtual reality of computers and the internet, but in a world that has been around longer, and will be here after. Constitution man will enter this world on occasion to uphold not parchment but the genuine constitution no one has ever seen, but yet it is, on the high end of “between being and not being,” just a little less eternal than the numbers, and a little further less than the deeds of the saints that are the garment of Bride. Constitution man comes from there, these phases of what Popper called World Three, and enters into our world to secure particular constitutions in times of crisis, when normal authorities have been usurped by treachery, honest men and women deceived, and particular constitutional governments imperiled.
mmcdonald77 