Is It Possible For Roe v. Wade To Be Overturned?

The simple answer to the title question is that Roe v. Wade can be overturned if the case is accepted by 4 members of the Supreme Court for review, and 5 members vote to declare it unconstitutional. As of this time there are 5 conservative and 4 liberal members on the court.

But, as reported in many newspapers, the road to overturning Roe is filled with minefields, precedent, strong societal sentiment, legal maneuvering and the consciences of nine extraordinary judicial scholars who are not blind to the needs of America.

The first area to consider is society. Is our country prepared to undo the overwhelming impact of Roe? No way in the mind of many experts. Not every woman favors the right of women to choose, but it’s a good bet than far more than half do. This group will be mobilized if Roe is challenged directly.

Women proponents are much more vocal, organized and determined than their opponents. And, it appears men are leading the charge against abortion, and women who oppose it are not so anxious to declare themselves publicly.

Politicians must also walk a fine line when it comes to abortion, especially female pols. There appears to be a stigma associated with women against the right to choose. And it’s likely that their young daughters who are overwhelmingly in favor of a woman’s right to choose are pressuring their influential moms.

Given the political turmoil that the US has experienced relating to the current administration and Clinton’s defeat in 2016, a reversal of Roe would surely cause a great political and societal backlash. Protest and marching could become violent.

You may be asking why societal reaction is relevant. After all, SCOTUS merely needs a case to judge and 5 members must vote to overturn the abortion law that was decided nearly 50 years ago. The fact is that the justices are mindful of actions that will adversely impact society. From time to time antiquated laws are changed, but they are few and far between. In most cases significant societal pressure made it wise for the court to make amends.

In the press a lot is being discussed about the mood of the courts. Some experts are saying that certain judges (including Chief Justice Roberts) prefer to make broad changes incrementally, and Roberts is certainly in a position to influence both conservative and liberal judges in this regard.

So it would not be a surprise if Roberts encouraged his colleagues to consider peripheral issues relating to abortion. In a sense, if existing law is anathema to a judge, he or she may choose to address it by making new law on the fringes of the main issue.

A wholesale decision: “Abortion is unconstitutional and illegal in the US” is not going to happen in the near term.

And finally there is stare decisis, the precedent issue that is a cornerstone of SCOTUS tradition. Every recent judge confirmed to the court said under oath that respecting the decisions of previous courts is critical.

This means that changing settled law should only occur if there is a great change in societal attitudes and/or circumstances. Things like slavery, prohibition of alcohol, segregation and the right to vote are some of the issues that rise to such a level. Abortion, in the writer’s opinion, does not because the country is split on the issue.

Many believe proponents of abortion should dial down the drama notwithstanding the new Alabama law that makes all abortions illegal. It will be declared unconstitutional and will not set any new precedent. It will be scorned by a significant majority of Americans as a political ploy that has no traction in the country.

However attacks on lower level issues such as limiting the number of abortion clinics in a state, waiting periods, mandatory abortion education, etc. will be front and center. If these cases gain support, abortion itself will eventually be on the docket.



Is Roe v. Wade In Jeopardy?

The confirmation of two conservative judges to the Supreme Court has reignited the abortion controversy. Abortion proponents are concerned that the new conservative majority will attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade was a 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortions early during a pregnancy based upon the Fourteen Amendment, which speaks to the right of privacy. SCOTUS amended the law in 1992. It now states that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place undue burden on a woman seeking abortion before the fetus is viable. The federal law has been attacked from every perspective in actions by individual states.

Proponents and opponents of abortion have greatly contributed to the extraordinary anxiety and agitation affiliated to this social issue. The status of the unborn fetus is a critical national consideration. Is a fetus a human being or does it become a person sometime during the nine-month gestation period?

There is wisdom and logic on both sides. For years Americans have fought over the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman. One thing is for sure. The solution to this dilemma is not at the beginning or the end of the fetus’ cycle.

Let’s break down the issues. First, A woman’s rights. A very strong case can be made that a woman should be the master of her own body. After impregnation she cares for the fetus from conception to birth and thereafter. Her diligence and love will have a great impact on the health of the child should the fetus go full term. But is the woman an island?

The creation of a fetus is not possible without a contribution from a male. The child that will eventually be born is half his or her mother and half the father. It’s a reasonable question whether sperm donors should have a say in the ultimate decision to abort. This argument carries little weight in the current controversy.

What rights does a fetus have? Is it a person with “unalienable rights,” including the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” In other words is the federal government responsible for protecting the rights of the fetus as it does any citizen? It’s a good question and offsets, to a degree, the issue of a woman’s right to privacy. Should the pregnant woman be the sole judge of whether the fetus survives?

In Roe v. Wade the decision was made that the woman does in fact have virtually all of the power to decide whether her fetus should survive and become a living American.

On the other side of the coin are the opponents of abortion. Their perspectives are greatly impacted by religious dogma. It’s convenient if not totally accurate for them to say a fetus is a living entity. It’s a person from the moment of conception, should be protected by the federal government and to abort the fetus is murder.

Once again the issue of privacy of the woman is front and center. Should the government have a say in the survival of the fetus? The counter argument is that a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb until a certain number of days pass. So does the fetus mystically transform from a non-living entity to a living entity on a date certain? Do all the benefits of being an American kick in on a random date?

It’s important for everyone to realize that Roe v. Wade established a precedent that the ultimate compromise can be a negotiated time during gestation when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. This precedent is protected by stare decisis, or SCOTUS’ tradition of respecting decisions of previous courts. This could mean that all the turmoil about the new conservative court overturning Roe is moot. And not withstanding the current justices’ bias against abortion, tradition and precedent will win out and continue to support a woman’s right to choose.

But this is not the end of the story. The bid and ask for the competing sides is great and very debatable. Proponents of abortion believe that a woman’s right should have no limits. They believe a woman should be able to terminate from conception until birth.

Likely, SCOTUS will eventually lock in a date. But will compromise result in acceptance by all? Will an opponent who thinks that life begins at conception ever accept that a woman can decide before the end of the second trimester to have an abortion? Will a proponent ever give up the crusade for a woman’s total control of a decision to abort?

And then there are all the side battles taking place across the country in liberal and conservative states. Opponents are tying to make it difficult for women to legally obtain an abortion by assigning restrictions and requirements. These include mandatory counseling, waiting periods, limitation on the number of clinics that do abortions, capping health care aid, etc. All these indirect roadblocks must end. Individual states must eventually yield to a national policy that gives the woman the right to choose.

On the other hand the radical proponents are pushing for more latitude that include late term abortions. This most radical perspective would allow the abortion of a fetus very close to the birth date. The vast majority of Americans, including many proponents, are against this procedure unless the health of the woman and/or the child is at stake.

It may be a naïve perspective but it appears that the right of a woman to choose is locked in. Nuisance efforts to change this will ultimately fail because Roe is part of our culture. However it is important that neither side push to make changes that cause the other side to respond in kind, Let’s lock up an abortion law once and for all.I

The US/Russia Conflict

Why is the US perpetually in conflict with other countries and their leaders? Is it a struggle for world domination, military superiority, economic advantage, imperialism, colonialism, or do these opponents have legitimate grounds to resist America at every opportunity?

Russia is the oldest perennial competitors of the US. Since World War II the US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have been at loggerheads. And now both countries are attempting to delve into each other’s domestic affairs via cyber warfare.

After the Second World War the Soviet Union led by Stalin worked to gain territorial advantages as the East and West divided up war torn Europe. The allies encouraged the countries they controlled to become democracies by having free elections, and the Soviets made their acquisitions satellites of the Mother Country.

Stalin, among other things, wanted to create a buffer zone, an Iron Curtain if you will, that would separate the Soviet Union from central Europe in the event of hostilities. Puppets installed by the communist taskmasters governed the Soviet satellites unless they or their citizens refused to cooperate (Poland and Hungary uprisings in 1956).

Stalin knew the US and its allies would be his principal adversaries moving forward during the reconstruction of Europe and beyond. The US acted in kind and the seeds of a cold war were sown.

The Cold War featured a massive military buildup that included thousands of nuclear weapons that could end mankind. The threat of mutual assured destruction was the major reason why a nuclear war was averted during this stressful period of history. The ultimate cost of armaments and fear mongering was massive for the US and the Soviet Union.

In 1991 the Soviet Union fell and was restructured into 15 separate democracies. Mikhail Gorbachev resigned and was replaced by Boris Yeltsin in Russia. A drop in oil and gas revenues, loss of control of Eastern Europe and the failure of Gorbachev’s reforms to bear fruit are some of the most important reasons why the communists fell.

Others might say that the cost of waging a Cold War with the US, and the affiliated cost of weaponry, were also a primary factors affecting the Soviet Union.

Today Vladimir Putin rules with an iron fist in the guise of a truly elected president. As an old Soviet bureaucrat, Putin longs for the good old days and the comforting buffer zone between Russia and the West. His objectives are undeniable although never spoken: bring Eastern Europe and the Balkans back under Russian control. Certain countries have made this objective difficult by joining NATO, a military alliance controlled by the US that will respond as a group if any member is threatened. Note: the response of NATO in Ukraine has been less than impressive.

But, how should the world view Russia’s aggressive activities that are far afield from its national security? The country is powered by its energy industries. It makes deals with other countries that are a combination of economics and politics.

Russia’s dependence on fossil fuel sales is not a healthy situation and Putin knows it. Many of his clandestine activities around the globe are impacted by the country’s cash flow. So one must ask why he uses precious resources in his efforts to antagonize and stifle America. Wouldn’t Russia be better served if cash were used for productive purposes rather than creating havoc.

For example, Russia has joined forces with Iran to protect Syria and Bashar al Assad, one of the most dangerous and despised despots in the world. Of course no one knows how much Putin spends on his folly to keep this murderer in power, but why do it in conjunction with yet another hated country, Iran? Probably, Putin hopes to create disruption in the region that will somehow generate diplomatic opportunities for his country.

Efforts by Russia to influence US elections and elections throughout the world are putting world leaders on edge. How is this beneficial to Russia? These intrusions are so invasive that many in the global community of nations will eventually respond negatively. Putin’s actions are nothing less than imperialistic, an attitude not even branded on the US.

In America the Russian effort to influence our elections have been exposed. At least some of the classified information on this matter collected by Robert Mueller will be disseminated. These will include acts to buy and expose the dirty laundry of certain candidates or making unsubstantiated robo-posts to social media that are harmful to election contenders. The resultant mudslinging opportunities are unlimited and could have great impact.

Why doesn’t Putin want to live peacefully along side the US? Maybe he’s a warrior who needs to be in a battle or trying to overtake another country. He’s definitely not endearing himself to US allies and democratic countries around the world. Ultimately Russia will pay a price for its bellicose attitude.

Mueller’s Cowardly Report

Everyone knew the Mueller report was going to create a sh—t storm. The reason for competing interpretations of Russian collusion and obstruction has occurred because Mueller and his minions did not have the courage, or the evidence, to actually accuse Trump of a crime.

Mueller and his fellow witch hunters wanted to bring down Trump, but couldn’t. So they loaded the report with innuendo and evasive commentary and sent it to the Department of Justice.

Also the Special Counsel didn’t want to be the impetus for a constitutional crisis or an impeachment. So he said, “Here’s what I found. You [Congress] decide what to do with it.” The fact is Mueller didn’t have enough evidence to indict the president, so he in effect extended the witch-hunt by punting the ball to hate-mongering Democrats. This was a cowardly thing to do, and ultimately it will severely hurt our country. Mueller should have answered the question, “Is Trump guilty of collusion or obstruction of justice, and can you prove it?”

Most people expected Mueller to indicate that Trump and his sycophant’s did A,B and C, all impeachable offenses. In fact, regarding collusion the report does exonerate the president, for the most part. Mueller provided a list of meetings and conversations that made it appear that Trump wanted to work with Russia to defeat Clinton, but he didn’t act. Mueller couldn’t indict Trump for “bad intentions.”

Now Trump says he’s exonerated, and Democrats say he really wanted to collude. Frankly impeachment should not be pursued based Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Cummings and Waters’ ability to read Trump’s mind.

Then there is obstruction. Really? Anything the president did that makes it difficult for the Department of Justice or Congress to investigate accusations of misbehavior could be labeled obstruction. However a legal act by the president, like firing a subordinate (Comey, for instance) is not obstruction, per se.

It may have been on Trump’s mind to interfere with investigations, but every partisan in Washington was calling for Comey’s dismissal at one point or another. It’s absurd to definitively say Trump fired Comey to impede the investigation of his administration unless you are a mind reader.

Mueller took a cowardly path. He made a huge list of threatened actions by Trump that were inspired by the hostility directed at him by the DoJ and congressional Democrats. Mueller outlined them in his report and said that it was up to Congress to decide whether they are impeachable with no commentary about whether they were crimes, in his opinion.

Why the hell did we spend million of dollars for Mueller to investigate if he doesn’t conclude that a crime(s) was or was not committed? The report to Congress about Trump says Congress should investigate and decide for itself.

Mueller was supposed to tell Congress, and indirectly the American people, whether Trump or his incompetent aides broke the law. The special counsel was hired by the DoJ, after demands by Congress. The counsel did a lousy job and created more problems for the country.

Mueller should not be allowed to say Trump “might” be guilty. Trump is innocent until someone or some group proves he committed crimes. Only then would impeachment make sense.

Beto’s Climate Change Solution?

Democratic candidates for the presidency continue to inundate voters with uniformed and absurd promises. Beto O’Rourke has presented the latest, on toxic emissions.

The plan calls for “net-zero emissions by 2050, [recommitment] to the Paris Agreement and [restoration of] Obama-era power plant regulations and fuel standards . . .”

The proposal has a $5 trillion price tag over 10 years “for . . . clean-energy research, infrastructure and extreme weather preparation.” However, the cost number excludes expenditures relating to building efficiencies and federal permitting, along with ending fossil-fuel leases, reducing methane emissions from oil and natural gas facilities, etc. It would generate untold trillions of dollars of other costs for the federal government and private industry.

Of course, details are scant and various conservative and liberal parties are chiming in on the feasibility of such an endeavor, in an environment that is moderately receptive to the potential dangers of climate change.

There’s no question that climate issues are potentially an existential threat to mankind. But the US cannot deal with problem alone. Coordination with other major polluters of the environment is critical. And it’s highly unlikely that China, India and Brazil are going to forestall their industrial revolution to work towards less toxic emissions.

Also relevant are the issues important to our legislators. Conservatives and liberals in Congress can’t even negotiate a format to interview the Attorney General. Just imagine how difficult it will be to create a comprehensive plan for the federal government and every company in the country in an effort to save the world.

It would be nonsensical to pick apart O’Rourke’s proposal, primarily because he obviously spent a couple of hours thinking about the risks to planet Earth. Suffice it to say the plan is a non-starter as is all climate reform, until our federal government finds a way to build a bridge between the two political parties. Unfortunately Democrats are totally engrossed in the reinvestigation of Mueller’s investigation than negotiating when the use of fossil fuel should be banned.

Voters should recognize that a climate change plan along with universal health care, free college tuition and forgiveness of student debt are nothing more than liberal pipe dreams. The promises being made will not be kept if Democrats capture the presidency.

Entitlements, Income Inequality and Inheritance

Democrats are proposing some very big giveaways and entitlements. Elizabeth Warren is shaping up to be the leader of the pack along with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders.

It’s disquieting to witness how liberals are attempting to take over the federal government by bankrupting the country. Among Democrats there is not one iota of fiscal sensibility. They think they can buy votes by giving freebies to their base. If they are successful in 2020, there is no chance that any of their ridiculous and expensive entitlements will actually become law.

It’s comforting that many legislators, in both major parties, have admitted that the proposals by the politicians mentioned above are outrageous, even as millennials and ethnic groups are celebrating promises that won’t be kept. The types of aid being suggested go far beyond socialism and would be a recipe for financial disaster.

Warren’s objectives are actually the most draconian. The only strategy she has to pay for entitlements is to tax the affluent. After telling us about her intent to spend trillions, she has not offered one creative idea about how to fund universal health care, free college tuition, free child care and so on. If wealthy class taxes were increased to 60 or 70%, it wouldn’t be enough to avoid crushing fiscal deficits. Have any of the Democrats ever taken a course in economics or accounting?

Liberals say their base is totally supportive of proposals to bilk rich people. Of course they are. Other people are being asked to make sacrifices, not them. Proposals would be far more palatable if all Americans made contributions to improve our country.

For instance liberals never speak of commitment from the individuals receiving aid. Why should welfare be paid to able-bodied people if they refuse to accept available jobs? The job market is vibrant. People can find work. Aid should be contingent upon the recipients improving their lot. Aid should be temporary and not a perpetuity.

Some have suggested that young people with college debt should have an obligation to pay a percentage of their earnings, over a minimum level of earnings, into the future. If they were successful their debt would be paid back. If they cannot find employment above a certain amount, they would not repay with money needed to survive.

The point is everyone should make sacrifices. The Democrats and the federal government should not be allowed to continually demand more from successful Americans. And, since when is it a crime to earn a high wage? The mantra “everybody should pay their fair share” is a license to rob the rich. The affluent class in America has worked hard for their standard of living. The mantra is apropos for Robin Hood in Sherwood Forrest, not the US.

The amount that an individual earns is based upon the contributions he or she makes to the success of the organization he or she works for. Even in government, individuals that have advanced education and experience earn more than newer, less educated employees. Over time, with hard work, ambition and creativity people can advance. This holds true for both governmental and private positions.

One of the most absurd controversies deals with the outrage over CEO compensation. Why would anyone find it offensive that the person who manages a corporation with 20 or 30 thousand people would earn 200 or 300 times the lowest paid employee? People are not paid millions of dollars unless they bring many times their compensation in value added service.

One of the most important tasks of Boards of Directors is to pay the person who runs the business a competitive salary based upon performance of the organization, personal achievement and comparison to others at different companies doing the same job. Usually, in the beginning of the year, targets for performance (financial, reputation, competitiveness, diversity, employee relations, etc.) are negotiated. If goals are achieved compensation will reflect them. If goals are not met compensation will suffer.

There is a growing misconception that certain people are dealt six and seven figure salaries as a gift. This is absolute nonsense and a myth perpetrated by radical social progressives. To bring home this kind of money is only possible for individuals who have the education, skill, drive and integrity necessary to be successful.

The New York Times had an article in the Sunday edition that spoke about the revulsion of children for inherited wealth from their parents. All parents are trying to do is to give their children a great life where decisions need not be made based upon the money. For this some parents are scorned. Talk about no good deed going unpunished.

It comes as no surprise that young people are so overly sensitive to income inequality when 90% or so of their teachers and college professors along with the media are so critical of high wage earners in the country.

My advice to the unfortunate young people saddled with so much cash: find a charity and write a big check.

As for Democrats, they will continue to play upon the problems of the lower classes by blaming them on the affluent.



Voting Rights For Convicts: Another Crazy Progressive Proposal

Several of the progressive, left wing socialists vying for the Democratic presidential nomination have gone too far. They are trying to convince Americans that convicted felons in prison and jail should retain the right to vote. Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, Democratic candidates for president, are leading this outrageous effort.

Many moderates and conservatives anticipated crazy proposals from ultra liberal candidates, and they are not being disappointed. Already Democrats are suggesting outlandish pie-in-the-sky proposals that include a multi-trillion dollar green new deal, a multi-trillion dollar free health care plan for all Americans (and the end of private health care coverage), free college tuition and free child care. The cost of all these entitlements and initiatives would certainly bankrupt our country. Supporters of these ideas say higher taxes on the affluent would pay for them.

So it’s not a revelation that radical liberals would also suggest that incarcerated individuals should not lose their right to vote. And it also comes as no surprise that their opponents are outraged by such a ridiculous proposal.

Why would law-abiding Americans allow convicts to vote? Their freedom has been taken away because they stole, cheated, murdered, kidnapped or terrorized fellow Americans. They brought sadness and devastation to countless families. Convicts are not supposed to have comfortable experiences while incarcerated, or be able to influence anyone outside of prison.

The only conceivable reason for this inane proposal is the Democrats’ search for more votes. Anyone who would vote progressive is a target of Democrats. Since the number of people locked up in the US is about 2.3 million, getting them the right to vote could impact many elections.

It’s likely that most Americans would support a change in voting rights for convicts who have paid their debt to society. This should be an item for discussion if Congress ever gets around to prison reform.

This episode is reminiscent the Willie Horton controversy during the George H.W. Bush/ Michael Dukakis presidential campaign. Horton, a violent criminal, was furloughed from prison in Massachusetts and committed additional crimes. It was a boon to Bush who said his opponent was soft on crime.

The bottom line is that many Americans are not sympathetic to the most violent criminals in jail. It is likely that Republicans will try to pin this on liberal candidates.

This voting rights proposal, which is being championed by several liberal candidates, is insulting to the victims and survivors of violent crimes and is indicative of what will be in store for America if a progressive candidate wins the White House.

The US Is Not Losing Influence Around The World

Trump haters have been saying that America is losing its status as the leader of the free world. They say the president’s non-traditional diplomacy tactics will make it more difficult for the US to assert its policies and ideology prospectively. This is not an accurate depiction of America’s strength under the leadership of President Trump.

Trump’s aggressive style is not endearing the US to other nations. But it is enabling the US to transact changes in trade arrangements and several other areas.

Regarding trade, America is making great strides and is in the midst of important negotiations with several countries around the world. For years other nations have taken advantage of US generosity by assessing high tariffs on our exports. We have not retaliated by correspondingly increasing our tariffs on the imports from these same countries, until now.

It could be that over the years our government thought it wise to use tariff negotiations for diplomatic purposes. Most of the gains no longer exist, and the gratitude of old trading partners has waned.

Other nations have taken advantage of our attempt to encourage free trade, a misnomer in today’s world. Free trade, per se, means there are no barriers for imports or exports. Unfortunately roadblocks exist throughout the world, as other countries never hesitate to protect domestic industries. The US on the other hand does the least to protect home grown companies.

Exacerbating the situation is the theft of trade secrets and the unorthodox demands of China. Investment in the country almost always necessitates local ownership, disclosure of trade secrets and revealing information about proprietary products. At long last the federal government has protested these practices and is demanding they cease immediately.

The US is by far the most powerful military force in the world. Unfortunately military might is the only thing that despotic countries and terrorists seem to understand. This unholy situation has been a boon to ever increasing suicide bombings around the world. Only through harmful terror activities do certain organizations project their influence.

Because our security is far stronger than all other countries, even with our open borders, terrorism strikes more frequently elsewhere. Nevertheless, the US has had its fair share of tragedy, in particular the 9/11 attacks.

The US has been an exporter of armaments to many countries and local militia groups worldwide. Generally, but not always, these arms sales have included low tech weapons. Although it is somewhat counterintuitive to sell arms while simultaneously calling for peace, the US derives many benefits from this activity.

First of all, these sales bolster domestic arms manufacturers. The affiliated revenues are very significant if they are sold and not just handed over to others. But even more important is that the US can support fledgling efforts in certain places to overturn despotic and unfriendly regimes. For instance, the US regularly provides arms to freedom fighters in the Middle East and other places. It should be noted that, on occasion, weapons we sell to some groups are either used against us, or our allies, or sold to other groups that are hostile to the US. It’s a dirty business.

The most important contemporary “weapon of mass destruction” available to the federal government, aside from raw firepower, is the economic influence of the US. Our country can virtually bankrupt another nation by manipulating and limiting the use of our banking system. Sales cannot happen between our enemies if the cash can’t travel from buyer to seller. Additionally embargoes on countries like Iran and North Korea will ultimately aid in the redemption of evil leaders or their demise.

To his credit, Trump has effectively used the threat of power to drag uncooperative leaders towards peaceful arrangements. None have been consummated, but progress has been made.

North Korea will eventually accede to giving up their nuclear weapons so long as economic pressure is maintained. Similarly Iran is in dire straits economically because of embargoes that now have been attached to all of their oil sales. Without this source of revenues there will be domestic upheaval in Iran and a decline in nefarious activity in the Middle East.

China is in the midst of an industrial revolution that depends upon rapid and continuous economic growth. The US can hamper this with tariffs on Chinese exports to the US. China exports far more items to the US than what the US exports to China, so retaliation by China will not have a great effect on the US. By attaching large penalties to critical items, the US can actually increase unemployment in China.

The US has its issues. Entitlements and giveaways to too many people are creating massive financial problems. Nevertheless our economy is chugging along nicely and most people are working. Our country continues to wield great influence, which has not been used effectively by previous presidents.

Why Is Congress Re-investigating Mueller’s Work?

As anticipated, Mueller’s investigation didn’t settle a damn thing. If he could prove Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election, the president would and should be impeached. If Mueller could prove Trump obstructed justice, he would and should be impeached. Mueller couldn’t do either. So why is this whole thing being re-investigated by Congress?

Democrats are pushing forward to review Mueller’s work, a man was anything but partial towards the president. This is being done even as our nation is in dire need of new infrastructure, more security, immigration reform and so on.

Liberal lawmakers have made up their minds that Trump is guilty of crimes and misdemeanors of the heart. They say Trump wanted to commit crimes but his aides stopped him from doing so. They say all of the president’s minor offenses add up to a major crime that is impeachable. Trump’s opponents want to impeach because Mueller did not “exonerate” Trump.

Exoneration was not Mueller’s purpose. He was appointed to investigate undue influence in the 2016 election by Trump and/or his advisors, and to accuse those guilty of such a crime. The investigation expanded and Mueller came up empty. It’s likely that Mueller and his zealots came to the conclusion that the disorganized and inexperienced Trump administration was, in no way, capable of executing a broad conspiracy in cahoots with Vladimir Putin.

I’ve learned from watching countless episodes of Perry Mason, L.A. Law and CSI that it’s the job of a prosecutor to indict and prove criminal activity. The accused doesn’t need to testify or prove anything. If the accused is “logically guilty,” it doesn’t matter. Proof of a crime is the thing that enables a court to convict someone. On the other hand, Trump is guilty until proven innocent if you believe liberals.

The hypocrisy of Trump’s congressional opponents is staggering. It seems like every day one of them is found to have committed a real crime, acted corruptly or sexually abused the opposite sex. Nearly every day federal, state and local officials are accused and convicted of taking bribes, and corruption.

To make matters worse the congressional committees convened to interrogate the opposition are an embarrassment. Very few committee members are prepared or experienced enough to ask questions.

If Democrats can prove Trump committed a crime, bring it on. Why would the American people stand for another 18 months of reexamination of Trump’s alleged misbehavior? When November 2020 arrives, Americans can vote and oust Trump from office for being a jerk, which is not a crime.

In the meantime alleged crimes by Democrats are not being investigated. The infamous dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign has not been ferreted out. It contains lies and was illegally used to trap innocent people. And what about all the crimes perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and her minions?

I’m disgusted that my government is in paralysis. I’m disappointed that the president and Congress can’t enact new laws that could potentially impact poverty, education, border security, international trade, terrorism, infrastructure, prison reform, etc.

Congress should allow voters to deal with the strange man in the White House in 2020 and end the investigations by incompetent, uninformed, embarrassingly unsophisticated ideologues in Congress.


No Democratic Candidate Can Defeat Trump

Donald Trump has done everything humanly possible to alienate Americas outside of his political sphere. The 2016 election and subsequent polls have never given Trump a majority. A vast swathe of America despises him. He’s only been successful in the last Electoral College. There is no reason why a Democrat should not be the next president. And yet, it’s not going to happen. Here are five of the most important reasons why.

#1- Democrat infighting. When it’s all said and done there will be 20 or 30 liberal candidates fighting tenaciously for the Democratic nomination. Even though all are very progressive, each has a special interest(s). Sanders is universal health care (among several other issues), Gillibrand –women, Harris- prison reform, Biden-anyone’s guess, O’Rourke- immigration and so on.

Every member of the group will be vying to be the ultimate left-wing candidate during the primary. Historically presidential candidates cater to the most radical elements in the primaries and move to the center in the general election. Not in 2020. Every Democrat will continue to move further left as the campaign revs up.

Democrats are not a cohesive group, although their caucus in Congress has consistently voted against all initiatives by Trump. They are only united in one regard, the demise of President Trump.

Sanders still thinks the old guard cheated him in the 2016 primary. And so he has a chip on his shoulder and is clashing with Clinton trolls who for some reason continue to have influence over Democratic dogma and money.

Joe Biden is a confused has-been. He has no idea whether he will contend, but he is keeping Democrats on the edge of their seats waiting for an announcement. He also should stop touching women without their consent.

#2- Socialism. All of the Democratic candidates have gone all-in for socialism. Being a socialist used to be the kiss of death for politicians in this country, and now it’s all the rage. Liberals have decided the best way to combat Trump’s outrageous and destructive leadership is to act more like countries that we have despised and conflicted with over the years. This has occurred even as many of those same countries have moved away from socialism to capitalism economically. Russia and China are the most noteworthy examples of this.

Our nation cannot afford to provide free health care, free education, free prescription drugs, free college tuition, free child care, restitution to oppressed Americans, etc. There are not enough wealthy people in the country to bilge to fund all these programs and entitlements.

America is a capitalistic country and most people, liberal and conservative, want an economic system that rewards hard work, innovation and ambition. Americans don’t want the federal government to assign to them the same salary, same house and same life as their neighbors. They believe in exceptionalism. No matter how much Sanders screams and hollers this country will not accept his vision.

#3- The Sanders factor. It is inconceivable that America would elect Bernie Sanders president. He’s a socialist who has no conception of what services cost or what America can afford. He opposes millionaires and billionaires even though he recently joined the 1%. He’s too old and his vision of government is warped. The only people who will vote for him will be unpredictable and naive millenials and downtrodden ethnic groups that want more entitlements without conditions.

#4- Trump Investigations. Democrats are a political party with one objective, the ouster of Donald Trump. Forget about security, nuclear proliferation, trade, safe borders and the well being of our financial system.

In fact even after a rabid prosecutor and his openly left-wing cadre spent two years trying to make a case against Trump, Democrats now want to restart the investigation. Have you heard about any real initiatives by Democrat leaders lately?

More investigation is not what Americans wants. Voters want to be safer, earn a fair wage and live a rewarding life with their families. Political soap operas no longer will move the electorate.

#5- The economy. Our economy, even with a global slowdown is doing very well. Unemployment is low and wages are increasing. Confidence is high. In times of good economic growth, incumbents win elections.

Our nation has many issues to deal with. Yet Democrats have not shown one scintilla of interest or creativity to make the America better. They are losers in 2020 in spite of Trump’s outlandish leadership.