The Man Who Would Be King

President Trump amazes me sometimes by his authoritarian behavior. To a great extent I am reminded about how the Declaration of Independence listed the wrongs perpetrated by King George. To me, there is an obvious parallel.

In the Declaration it says, "He [King George] has endeavoured to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." Doesn't sound like how Trump has tried to ban Muslim immigration, South American and Mexican immigration, etc.

The Declaration also says, "He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries". Mr. Trump has showed contempt for the office of the inspector general who is responsible for oversight and accountability for the Congress. He has fired the attorny's general when they have disagreed with him. He has failed to appoint any members to the board of the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board, thus denying employees and whistleblowers protection under the laws and he has loaded the Supreme Court with justices that hold his ultra-conservative views.

The Declaration says, "...for cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world". Trump has turned US trade policy upside down. He has  engaged in trade wars between the United States and China, the United States and Europe, the United States and random other countries for random reasons, Japan and South Korea, and even Britain itself. He has railed against the North American Free Trade Agreement. He has broken alliances with other nations and has withdrawn from numerous treaties.

The Declaration goes on to say, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us."  Trump has suggested that he would use federal troops to quell demonstrations. He has made statements and remarks that have actually inflammed said demonstrations. He supported (if not ordered) the January 6th insurrection.

I could go on and on. The bottom line is that Trump is not a King. Nor is he able to run things his way. Writing laws is the job of the Congress (albeit currently horribly divided). The Presidents job is merely to execute them. He cannot have it "his" way. He does not own the country like he owned his business. He cannot simply say "your fired" when things don't go his way.

Equality vs. Liberty

Society in the United States is highly divided. Various minority groups are demanding "equality" in one form or another. Equality can mean equal material goods and income, equal social status, equal education, equal general success and happiness in life, etc. Or, it can mean equality under the law, which is in a different and higher category. Equality before the law is essential to liberty in political society. Equality of property, education, power, etc. do not occur naturally and would require a great amount of regulation and coercion to achieve and sustain.

Liberty can be defined as the absence of coercion or control by others. The right of an individual to do whatever they choose with their life or property so long as they do not directly harm others. On the other hand, broad inequalities naturally exist at birth and throughout life. This fact has been evident throughout the ages for as long as humans have existed. To correct inequalities by laws, regulations and coercion inherantly conflicts with the concept of Liberty. A concept upon which our nation was founded.

Look at the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any of the twenty seven amendments. The word "equality" does not appear in any of these documents. The Declaration of Independence does mention "all men are created equal" under the law. It goes on to say that "liberty" is an unalienable right. It also says that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".

No one will dispute the fact that everyone isn't equal at birth. Some are men; others are women, some onetaller than others, some blonde and others brunette, etc. Such inequalities cannot be changed. Even if everyone (hypothetically) could be born exactly the same, they would inevitably develop differences as they grow up and are exposed to different physical, social and political environments. Free societies, by their very nature, are diverse and influence many people in countless different ways. If one tried to preserve equality, they would need to have very tight controls over all of the influences on every indiviidual. This would simply be impossible and completely opposed to the fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty. If a society is truly free, then a high degree of diversity will naturally exist and different individuals will choose different paths and different outcomes for good or for worse.

Liberty and freedom are high ideals. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created to give the people a framework within which to accomplish those ideals. If it works properly, the government will treat everyone fairly and equally under the rule of law. And, to preserve liberty, those laws can not restrict or coerce. In a sense, the less there are restrictions and coercion the more there is freedom. 

Policing

As a former Deputy Sheriff I am worried about the dissolution of civil order in America. From my point of view, it is wrong to blame the police when the problem goes much deeper than that. The police are just trying to do their job. And yes! They have made mistakes.

I think that society as a whole has broken down. We no longer have communities that care for each other and solve their own problems. We look to others to solve our problems for us. We do not take responsibioity for our own civil order. We are a divided society with no common goals and no cohesiveness. It's every one for themselves. And dog-eat-dog.

We all have problems. But, 3rd parties usually cannot fix them for us. 3rd parties have no vested interest in solving someone else's problems. But, there is strength in community. When a community stands together, they can solve their own problems. They don't need anyone else. No drug dealers, no shooters, and no corruption could survive if the community would only join together and want them gone. If we remain divided, the "bad guys" will always win.

I believe, that the rule of law is very important. Most police departments are organized as para-military organizations. I believe that such organizations are inherantly wrong. They inherantly become adversarial in nature. I think that the police should be our "neighbors, not our adversaries. I believe that the best way to get compliance with the law is though cooperation and understaning, not force.

Unfortunately, our existing government, the media and even the legal system itself seem to be trying to keep us divided and opposed to one another. Divided, we naturally become adversaries and more concerned about ourselve than others. Divided, "they" conquer and we become weak. United, we can achieve greatness and no corrupt government or criminal can withstand us.

As a prime example of how our society is divided, consider the "Black Lives Matter" movement. By its very nature, it emphasizes black lives instead of "all" lives. I believe that their approach is divisive and not constructive. We are all part of the human race and we all deserve to be treated fairly.

How Hot Can It Be

Some people still deny the idea of global warming. They say that it's nothing more than the normal cyclic rise and fall of historical temperatures. They are correct, but only in part.

The following graph illustrate how globabl temperature, in fact, have been cycling for over 800,000 years.

It can be seen that the CO2 levels and global temperature have mirrored one another for many millenia. The peak CO2 levels have historically been about 280 ppm. But notice that in only the past 50 years, the CO2 levels have nearly double their historical peaks to about 412 ppm today. One could assume that global warming will follow the CO2 levels and dramatically increase very soon. Science predicts, and historical records confirm, that global warming and CO2 levels are closely related.

Over it's lifetime, the Earth has undergone VERY dramatic changes before. In  fact, global warming isn't something new. But that doesn't mean that we should be OK with the changes. In fact, I doubt that anyone would want to live in the environment of any of the past historical changes. Consider the following graphs.

Going back millions of years ago (before the age of dinosaurs), the Earth was VERY very hot. In the Eocene period about 50 million years ago, the avearage global temperature was estimated to be about 112°F which is 55°  higher than the 20th century global average of 57°F. Back then, it took more than 10,000 years to get that hot. But today, if nothing is done to curb CO2 production, the temperature by the end of this century will be at least that high. That's only 80 years away.

So, the answer is "YES". We do need to worry about global warming. And we need to deal with it quickly. Time is running out.

Ministry of Truth

Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" is operating in high gear. It is busy erasing our history (or rewriting it) day by day. Controversial subjects are removed from each new addition of history texts. And, now we are getting rid of historical markers and statues. Why, because some misguided minorities might possibly be offended by them.

Why should be remove Columbus? Whom does he offend? I've heard that the Native Americans have a problem with him. Why? I can't understand. Columbus never set foot on the North American mainland. He never got beyond the Caribbean islands. He probably never encountered a single Native American.

Why should one want to get rid of Abraham Lincoln? He was a major force in emancipating the slaves. We all probably have things in our backgrounds that we're not proud of. But that should not erase the good works that we've accomplished.

In my opinion, a major problem in America today is that we've become divided and lost our sense of community. Our younger generation doesn't have a clue nor appreciate what the older generations have done to establish liberty and freedom for them.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863-1952

We've become an "I'm for Me First" society. "I want mine. I want it now, and I want it on credit.". The minorities seem to get whatever they demand, and We The People must pay the price so they can have it. Whatever happened to compromise and majority rule? So long as the majority remains divided, I believe the minorities will eventually take everything away. I also believe that the governing powers  (both in Washington and locally) actually want the majority to remain divided. If the majority were united, they would probably throw out the corruption.

Riots Don't Help

Peaceful protests have turned into riots. Civil disobedience has turned into looting and arson. Things are competely out of control!

Yes! Some police have committed crimes. Yes! Black lives matter. Yes! Poverty is a problem.But how does rioting, looting and arson help the situation? Being unlawful is no way to bring peace and harmony. Civil unrest is destructive; not constructive. It doesn't fix the problems!

I am keenly aware that minorities in this country lead very difficult lives. It has been more than 100 years since emancipation and the end of slavery. Yet, an inordinate number of African Americans still lack a good education, lack two-parent families, lack high paying jobs, lack good health care, etc. Yes! There is a tremendous amount of inequity. But how does being unlawful fix that?

In my opinion, any policeman who breaks the law they should be arrested and brought to trial.. But, the rule of law demands the same treatment for crimes committed by civilians as well. Let's face it. The civil unrest that is all over the media today is "unlawful". If allowed to persist, it will destroy our nation. It must be stopped.

If you want to fix your problems, you and your neighbors need to get together and fix them. There is no way that the police, the national guard, or any other 3rd party can fix your problems for you. You need to get yourselves together and fix them yourself. You need to be constructive, not destructive.

Post-Pandemic Pandemic?

What will happen if President Trump actually does lift social distancing and re-open the economy?

Without massive testing, infected people who don't show symptoms will leave their isolation and go out to spread the virus all over again. I predict DISASTER in the form of a post-pandemic pandemic.

Why does that man not listen to his advisors?

Why Do We Need Testing?

Widespread testing is the ONLY way to effective stop the COVID-19 virus. This is because waiting until symptoms appear, allows each infected person to infect others for at least 14 days.

We know that ONLY the infected persons need to be isolated in order to stop the spread of the virus. So, just lock everyone down just to be safe. This approach simply won't work because there need to be exception for essential services, etc. That will devastate our economy and those persons who are exempted could easily carry the virus without any symptoms.

So how do we detect and isolate the infected persons without isolating everyone else with them? Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and others have shown us how -- they've done massive testing to identify those with the virus before they show any symptoms. Then, they did comprehensive contact tracing to identify all those with whome they might have made contact.

In the USA we are not doing that. Essentially, the only people who are being tested here are those who present symptoms and then possibly others who they have contacted. This approach simply does not work. Consider the numbers...

Consider only one person who doesn't show symptoms and makes contact with 5 others every day for 14 days. And, assume that on each day one of the contacts became infected. But, also assume the newly infected persons also meet 5 others and infect only one of them. At the end of the first day, the original person would have infected one other. At the send of the second day, each of the infected people would infect one more giving a total of 4. One the third day, the 4 would double the num,ber again so that by the end of 14 days a total of 8192 people would have een infected and most of them would show no symptoms.

Being much more conservative, let's assume that the ratio of infection is less than 1:1 per day. How about if the rate of infection was only 1 every three days. Then the original person would only be responsible for infecting a total of 16 others. But when multiplied by something like 10,000 undetected original cases, total or the entire population could look like 160,000 undetected infections. And this in only 14 days.

Looking at the numbers, it makes it absolutely clear that to keep our economy stable and to stop the virus from spreading, massive testing is mandatory for controlling the spread of this virus. 

Several members of Predient Trump's task force have recommended massive testing. Most notable of these are Anthony Fauci MD, NIAID Director and Robert R. Redfield MD, CDC Director. Why have teeir recommendations not been implemented? Who or what is stopping the testing? It is imperative that we identify those who are infected but symptom free before they spread the virus any further.

Testing for COVID-19

ONLY with testing can those who have the virus but show no symptoms be identified. To stop the spread of any epidemic, the key factor is to identify those who are infected.

If we are to find a good example of how to do it, we could look at Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. In Korea's case as soon as they had the genetic sequencing for COVID-19 they developed a test. Then they applied that test randomly to their entire population. When infected cases were identified, they went further to trace contact with the infected person and tested them. The bottom line was that they did NOT shut down any businesses nor quarantine anyone who didn't first test positive.

Then they went further by gathering statistics. And when they found "hot spots", they tested them more heavily; again at random.

It is very important to note that at no time wwas there economy affected. Contrast that with the absurd wat that our government insists on not testing anyone until they show possible symptoms. Plus the dracomian way that people are shuttered at home and the economy is effected trashed.

COVID-19

The USA was completely unprepared for COVID-19. And, we were late in recognizing the threat.

Didn't our government learn anything from the SARS and MERS epidemics? Didn't they think something like that could happen again? Why were they not prepared for this pandemic. Now COVID-19 is here and we have been caught totally unprepared. We still haven't really come to grasp our situation. And, to be sure, there will be other pandemics in the future. It is not a question of whether another pandemic will occur, but when.

When COVID-19 emerged, China, Korea and other countries were very quick to react. They rapidly quarantined infected areas. The people immediately started to wear masks. And massive testing and contact tracing was imposed. We waited too long. By the time our government reacted, the virus had already spread to many locations across the country. The "genie was already out of the bottle". By the time we reacted, the virus was already out of control and had spread far and wide.

To keep the virus from spreading further, "social distancing" is being used in an attempt to keep the virus from spreading further. But, social distancing isn't comlete isolation and therefore isn't totally effective. However, in a democracy, locking everyone down would be totalitarian and is completely out of the question. And, as we can easily see, even social distancing has had a devastating effect on our jobs, our economy and the availability of essential services. Obvbiously, by isolating everyone we would surely kill our economy?

Infected people need to be isolated and their illness cared for. At the same time, people need to have jobs, provide services and keep the economy going. The simple fact is that the ONLY people who really need to be isolated are those who are actually infected. And that includes those who have the virus but show no symptoms. So, the problem comes down to finding those who are infected so they can be isolated and treated. The rest of the porulation could then go about their business and keep the economy from collapsing.

Identifying those who are infected requires testing. But, testing is a huge problem by itself. You simply can't test everyone! To test the entire population would require more than 300 million tests. And, to catch new infections on those who tested OK previously, those tests would need to be repeated frequently for at least the estimated time for the virus to incubate and probably longer. So, massive testing of the population is impossible.

If we can't identify those who are infected, a complete locakdown would be needed to stop the spread of the virus. But as we previously said, to do so would destroy our economy. Besides, we are a democracy. We don't want a totalitarian solution. We can't do a total lockdown without killing our economy. We can't test the entire population and we can't do a total lockdown. And once we have knocked down the number of infections, how do we prevent a flareup again until a vaccine becomes available. Somehow, we need to identify infected people and also get the uninfected people back to work. And, we have to do it without destroying our democracy.

So, how can we make certain when people are allowed to go back to work, that infected people are identified, isolated and treated.  I believe that testing is the key. One way to find infected people would be to test them as they return to work. Many employers now require drug screening and background checks before offering work. Why not do virus screening as well. If you want a job, you get tested for the virus. Such a program could easily idenify infected workers and would certainly be more effective that massive testing or massive quarantines. It could actually save our economy.

Such a testing program would be much cheaper and more effective than a massive testing program. It would also prevent the collapse of our economy. But, it would need to be free because thare are many people who don't have insurance or are living paycheck to paycheck.
.
Statistics show that self-testing can yield just as good results as having professionals administer the tests. Self-testing would reduce the need for professional staff and their protective gear (which in short supply). Professional staff could then focus on caring for those patients who are already known to be sick.

Tbis leaves me with the following unanswered questions:
  1. Why did our government not plan for an inevitable pandemic?
  2. Why did they wait until the virus had already spread befor reacting?
  3. Why are they advocating massive (totalitarian) isolation and destroying the economy?
  4. Why don't they focus on better testing to find those who are infected?
  5. Why don't they have a plan to save our economy?

Are the Subpoenas Valid?

I am a long time registered Republican.

BUT I’m still very angry at the Republican defense in the Impeachment.

How dare they say that the subpoenas sent to the President were invalid?

I did some research. There is no legal statute defining what it takes to issue a subpoena. However, the Supreme Court has made several decisions stating that Congress may definitely issue and enforce subpoenas. They have left it up to the House to write its own regulations about how to do it.

When questioned about the validity of its subpoenas, the House passed a resolution (H. Res 660) on October 31, 2019. In this resolution they clearly stated that the various committees did have the authorization to issues subpoenas for testimony relating to the impeachment of the President. Previously, the House tried to enact a statute (HB 4010) with the intent to enhance compliance with congressional subpoenas. It was passed unanimously on October 24, 2017. But, this bill never made it into law because the Senate ignored it. The house has never taken up the question again.

The Republicans say that the House didn't follow the rules. They say the subpoenas are invalid and didn’t follow procedure. But with no legal statute, what exactly are "the procedures"? Are we to believe that the House didn't have any rules? What about the bill that they passed unanimously? What about their resolution to support committee subpoenas? Hasn’t the Supreme Court specifically stated that House committees do have the power to issue and enforce subpoenas?

Obviously, the President cannot be compelled to testify against himself and thus could refuse any subpoenas directed at him. However, subpoenas directed to others should be valid and enforceable.

This whole Republican approach to defending the President is ridiculous!

Impeachment

I have been, and still am, a life-long registered Republican. I never thought I would live to see partisan politics taken to the extremes as in the now ongoing impeachment of President Trump. Partisan Politics are not useful or healthy. Democracy is based on cooperation and compromise; not divisiveness. Here is how I see this impeachment.

A bill of impeachment is like a bill of indictment. It is a statement of accusation -- nothing more. It is the formal means of bringing a case accusing the President of high crimes and misdemeanors. The events of the past several days are not a trial. They are merely a presentation by the House of Representatives of the accusations and clarification of the charges. The trial is yet to come.

When investigating a case, and before any indictment is made, the House of Representative (acting similar to a grand jury) has the right to compel documents and testimony using subpoenas if necessary. This is well established legal practice. The President denied the House of Representative this opportunity. While it is the right of any defendant not to testify against themselves, they do not have the right to compel others not to testify. Yet, that is exactly what the President has done. In my opinion, that act in itself is criminal. Despite their inability to get all of the testimony they sought, the House of Representative still felt they had enough evidence to bring charges in a Bill of Impeachment (an indictment).

Once charges have been brought in a Bill of Impeachment, and before any trial, both the prosecution and the defense have the legal right to issue subpoenas to help obtain further evidence they might need to testimony they need to either prosecute or to defend their case. To deny either side the right to do discovery and obtain further evidence is to make a mockery of the judicial system. It is simply not fair.. By tabling all proposed amendments, the Senate has denied the prosecution the opportunity to gather further evidence that may or may not support their case. By tabling each amendment, the Senate has taken the cowardly action of refusing to go "on record" and  vote upon the amendments, saying that they would deal with it later during the trial.

In a fair trial, the jury (in this case the Senators) does not have the right to decide what testimony they will or will not hear from either side. Admissibility of evidence is decided by the presiding judge (in this case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). That is not what has happened here. In this case, the jury has made the decision as to whether or not further documents and witness testimony shall be allowed. By doing so, they have prejudiced their own actions and decisions. They must hear both sides fully and completely. Later in their deliberations they can decide what they are or are not going to believe. They should not have the option of picking and choosing what testimony can or can not be presented.

Having finished the presentation and explanation of the Bill of Impeachment (the charges), the next step is to begin the trial and ask the President (defendant) to state his guilt or innocence. Normally, a defendant needs to say no more than "I'm guilty" or "I'm not". They can explain themselves if they want. Having stated the President's position (guilty or innocent) the trial begins.

Both sides get to present their arguments by presenting documents, witnesses and testimony. Both sides should also have the opportunity to cross examine the evidence. At any point during a trial, both the prosecution and the defense may present additional evidence and even compel desired testimony using the vehicle of subpoena if necessary. Those not honoring such subpoenas are prima facie guilty of being in "contempt of Congress" which is a crime.

Cross examination is essential. It is not just a matter of "I say" and "You rebut". Just as the defense has the right to question and rebut the prosecution, the prosecution must also be given the right to rebut the defense. In other words, it is not fair for either party to present testimony without the other side having an opportunity to respond. In the case of this impeachment, it would not be fair for the defense to present its arguments without allowing the prosecution to rebut them and, if necessary, to recall documents and/or witnesses in doing so.

I predict that the Republican controlled Senate will not permit the prosecution to bring any further evidence beyond the claims already made in the original Bill of Impeachment (indictment). I believe they will also not permit the President's case to be challenged in rebuttal. I also believe the Senate will not permit the prosecution to cross examine the President's testimony, and if necessary, to obtain the documents and witnesses to support their cross examination. If this comes to pass, I believe that the very fabric of our legal system and the Constitution will have been shattered.

I believe that the Republican Senate therefore must permit additional documents and witnesses and enforce subpoenas by either the prosecution or defense. They must also permit cross examination and questioning of testimony by both parties. Anything less is an unfair trial.

I call upon all Senators regardless of their political party to rise above partisan allegiances and strictly follow the law as it is outlined in the Constitution and has been commonly accepted for centuries. New evidence and cross examination must be permitted at any point during the trial. The jury (The Senators) must not be permitted to decide what evidence can or cannot be presented by either side. The Senate must remain neutral until such time as their deliberations. Admissibility and timing of evidence should be at the sole discretion of the presiding judge.

Alan N. Doering
Republican