Update no.943

Update from the Sunland

No.943

3.2.20 – 9.2.20

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            History was made this week, in many more ways than one, and so it is recorded in perpetuity.  This was an action-packed week . . . at least for internal American politics.

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Senate impeachment trial of the BIC [924 & sub] came to its inevitable, pre-determined conclusion.  Regardless, there were noteworthy moments for discussion or debate in this forum.

            On Monday, the House managers and the BIC’s defense team presented their closing arguments to the Senate.  Representative Adam Bennett Schiff of California, the lead House impeachment manager, delivered an impassioned closing statement that was noble, lofty and worthy of remembrance.  The factual evidence is overwhelming—just as it was in the O.J. Simpson murder case.  Yet, as it was in the Simpson criminal trial, the defense arguments proved to be the most engaging.  The BIC’s personal attorney Jay Alan Sekulow cited a Washington Post article from 20.January.2017 (inauguration day), titled “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.”  He (they) wants us to believe the BIC is a good, honest, but a beleaguered leader who has suffered under constant attack from the naysayers from the beginning. As always, there is just enough fact to make his argument sound plausible, if not compelling.  However, like all propagandists, Sekulow is betting that no one will read the article, and we will accept and believe the headline.  What he is counting on is for the headline to stimulate support and reinforcement of the defense argument—the BIC is the victim.  Well, Sekulow was absolutely wrong with his argument.  The article dealt with the BIC’s refusal to comply with conflict of interest laws before he took the oath of office.  Just to be clear, if impeachment of the BIC has been discussed since before his inauguration, it is entirely because he has wantonly violated the law, defied tradition, precedent and established practice over the entirety of his service as an employee of We, the People.  The BIC has continued to do just that since his election.  For Sekulow to claim victimhood for the BIC is really rich . . . beyond description and verging upon an outright lie before the Senate.  But that was not the most bizarre of the defense arguments.  That distinction falls to defense attorney Alan Morton Dershowitz.  He stood at the dais on the floor of the Senate and proclaimed for senators, this Grand Republic and the world, “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And, mostly they are right.  Their election is in the public interest.  If a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”  (emphasis mine)  Not surprisingly, Dershowitz has spent a lot of time since his statement backfilling—trying to justify his declaration.  He has tried to claim he did not say a president can do whatever he wants.  Well, let’s dissect the professor’s sentence.  The president is the object.  Without qualification, the only condition is “he believes,” which means the president alone is the judge of his actions.  To my simple understanding of the English language, that sounds exactly like another form of the president can do whatever he wants, as long as he believes it will help him get elected, which in turn means his election is in the national interest.  No matter how hard or long he tries to explain his words, they are recorded for history and will persist in infamy.  Oddly, so it has been reported, Dershowitz has endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020—go figure.  I doubt Joe will be featuring Dershowitz’s endorsement.

            On Tuesday, the Senate carried out a closed-door Senate floor “debate,” which was actually just an opportunity for those senators who wanted to make a statement to do so.  Senator Randal Howard ‘Rand’ Paul of Kentucky provided the one snippet we have.  During Senate question time during the trial, Chief Justice Roberts refused twice to read a question from Paul regarding disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity; he considered it to be inappropriate.  Paul being who he is, essentially said F*** you to the Chief Justice and used his time (and immunity) for floor debate to read his rejected question directly under his speech immunity protection on the Senate floor.

Are you aware that the House Intelligence Committee staffer, Sean Misko, had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together?  Are you aware, and how would you respond to the reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

I do not know if the name provided in Paul’s question is the whistleblower or even remotely related.  However, Eric Ciaramella is a CIA analyst and a former National Security Council staffer who has served in both the Obama and Trump administrations as a career intelligence officer.  Like all mob organizations, Paul sought to put a target on the chest of the man he accuses.  Like the BIC, Paul carries some immunity although he clearly violated federal law on the floor of the Senate.

            On Wednesday, 5.February.2020, the Senate voted, to convict or acquit, the president on the Articles of Impeachment [H.Res.755].

>> 48-52-0-0(0) – article I [abuse of power] – Senator Willard Mitt Romney of Utah was the only senator to jump party lines; first and only (so far) member of an impeached president political party who voted to convict and banish a president of his party.

>> 47-53-0-0(0) – article II [obstruction of Congress].

And so it was decided.  The BIC was acquitted—NOT exonerated.

            The weakest aspect of the House’s impeachment argument rests upon the decision not to engage the Judiciary to remove the president's use of legal and constitutional shields of his misconduct.

            The BIC’s defense argument is that he operated within the power of the president and he was simply protecting those powers as well as the separation of powers institutionalized in the Constitution, which essentially means that the president can hide behind his inherent (but limited) immunity and executive privilege.  Further, the BIC contends he was simply concerned about corruption and burden-sharing.  In those tasks taken in isolation are worthy, supportable, and frankly, I absolutely agree.  It is this reason singularly why, in general, the BIC’s actions are praiseworthy.  However, where he contaminated those lofty and worthy policy objectives was his choice to act outside the established processes, without the back-up of the government, and chose to use his personal attorney acting well outside government policy for personal electoral advantage.  The defense also cites “illegal” subpoenas by the House as the basis for his stonewalling of all subpoenas.  In so doing, the BIC chose to act as the sole judge of legality.  Just as he accused the House of not going to the Judiciary, so to that accusation must now be leveled at the Executive and the BIC.  If he truly felt those House’s actions were legal and not properly founded, he should have gone to the Judiciary; he did NOT.  He alone judged the legality.

            Republicans keep talking about negating or overruling the 2016 election.  Prima facie, that is categorically false, emotionally charged, and otherwise a most specious argument.  The impeachment trial was solely and absolutely based on the BIC’s misconduct in 2019 (only), and had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 election.  If he had not done what he did, there would not have been an impeachment trial.  Further, this Grand Republic is a representative democracy; it is not and never has been a popular democracy.  We, the People, vote periodically to choose our representatives.  We, the People, did so in the 2016 election.  Yet, the BIC chose to act contrary to the Constitution, to the law in general, and to the precedent established by the BIC’s 44 predecessors in the Office of the President.  The fact that millions of American citizens find affinity with the BIC’s outrageous behavior and conduct does not support or provide rationale for the BIC’s conduct.  The impeachment and trial are NOT about negating the 2016 election; it is entirely about condemning the BIC’s conduct as president.

            The citizens who voted for the BIC apparently choose to ignore his conduct, but the rest of us did not.  What we have born witness to since that moment is exactly what many of us saw in his behavior.  He violated the law before he was elected and We, the People, gave him the shield of the presidency to protect his illegal conduct.

            Senate Republicans voted to acquit the BIC.  They accepted the BIC’s stonewalling, and de facto declared that the president is above the law and above the Constitution.  They effectively declared the republic has ended and we have become a monarchy—not a constitutional monarchy, but a full-on monarchy.  King Donald I has been given absolute immunity from the law—sovereign immunity.  The king can do no wrong.  So, the House took their shot.  The Senate failed to convict and remove the president for his transgressions.  All hail the king!  Long live the king!  God help us all.

            As fully expected, the following day after his acquittal before the Senate, the BIC did what the BIC does; he spewed out his vulgar, vengeful, malicious vitriol at anyone and everyone who condemned him.  His absolute paucity of any form of dignity remains shocking to say the least.  The BIC’s vengeful wrath was on full display as much to validate the fear of him in the minds of Republican senators and representatives as it was to present his preferred image as a strong man.  Republicans apparently fear the BIC not for his disgusting personality anomalies, but for his grip on the Tea Party supporters who like and embrace the counter-culture attributes the BIC has fed and vote.  I suppose we should be grateful that the BIC has not (yet) fully embraced the example of his model leader—Adolf Hitler.  The BIC fires those who resist him, doing their job, rather than killing or incarcerating his adversaries.  He had LtCol Vindman and his twin brother (not involved in the BIC’s impeachment) walked out of the White House by uniformed Secret Service officers like some disgraced employees.  He fired Ambassador Sondland.  Ambassador Yovanovich retired from the diplomatic service in the days before the final Senate vote.

            The two most recent presidential impeachments stand in dramatic contrast.  Both presidents were impeached.  Both were tried in the Senate.  Both were acquitted by the Senate.  I urge everyone to watch and listen to a proper statement of contrition delivered by President Clinton on 12.February.1999.  For everyone’s benefit, I found a video clip from a neutral site of President Clinton’s full public statement after his acquittal.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?120121-1/presidential-reaction-acquittal

Using profanity in public speech is beneath the dignity of the president of the United States.  We are going to get so much more of the same from this deeply flawed man.  Lastly, the BIC is proving by demonstration the vengeance of power.  “When you come at the king, you best not miss.” [Omar Little]

            The first event of the silly season, primary phase occurred on Monday evening—the Iowa Caucuses.  I started writing this section on Tuesday morning and had to delete what I had written as well as suspend my writing until the end of the week.  This section was written late Sunday afternoon to have the latest information, since we still do not have validated results.  This edition of the Update will close out with the Iowa Caucuses officially undecided, although 100% of the precincts have reported their results.  Mayor Buttigieg has a 0.1.% lead over Senator Sanders.  The Iowa debacle was entirely a product of the Iowa Democratic Party—not the state or the national committee.  I am thankful they caught the problem and took the time to get it correct; however, their lack of preparation and contingency planning took us back to the fiasco of the 2000 election.  Such failures in our electoral processes are simply unacceptable.

            Tuesday evening, senators took a break from their internal debate of the president’s impeachment trial to join the representatives in the House chamber for the president’s constitutionally mandated State of the Union (SOTU) address.  [Quite the juxtaposition: POTUS SOTU during his trial in the Senate.]  The event did not start well. The BIC handed a copy of his SOTU speech to the vice president and the speaker of the House.  Speaker Pelosi extended her hand to the president who ignored her gesture and turned his back to her.  The BIC’s handshake sleight was just as bad as Elizabeth Warren’s and just as contemptible—a simple, clear demonstration of small-minded-ness.  The BIC also spent considerable time slicing and dicing the economic and employment numbers fifty different ways.  He had reason to crow, but his self-adoration was just a little overdone.  The BIC also accused the PRC of “theft of American jobs.”  An inflammatory statement that is categorically and patently false.  China did nothing of the sort.  U.S. businesses did what business does—they sought the best balance in their economic equation when labor costs could be reduced to improve profits—it is precisely what business does and should do.  As presidents have done in recent times, the BIC invited and recognized guests in the House gallery to emphasize points he wanted to make.  He deftly illuminated numerous American citizens the most notable being Brigadier General Charles E. McGee, one of the last surviving members of the famed Tuskegee Airmen.  The 100-year-old fighter pilot attended with his great-grandson who wants to join the new U.S. Space Force and become an astronaut.  Out of curiosity, I checked the BIC regarding his promotion of General McGee.  Sure enough, McGee’s honorary promotion (without additional benefits) was specifically passed by Congress and approved by the president in §599A, Subtitle J, Title V, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) [PL 116-092; S.1790; Senate: 86-8-0-6(0); House: 377-48-0-5(5); 133 Stat. 1197; 19.12.2019].  I am truly sorry that Rush Limbaugh has been afflicted with Stage IV lung cancer but giving him the Medal of Freedom in the gallery during the SOTU occasion just had a very bad feel to it—inappropriate and bad form—the Medal of Freedom is not some carnival prize.  All in all, ignoring his disgraceful sleight at the beginning, the BIC stayed on script and did a pretty good job with delivery.  Yet, I must say, he has never been and likely never will be an accomplished orator; by his standard, he did well.

            Governor Gretchen Esther Whitmer of Michigan delivered the Democratic response shortly after the BIC’s SOTU speech.  Well done!

            Despite the Iowa debacle (noted above), the Democratic candidates held a series of events in advance of the New Hampshire Primary election this coming Tuesday.  The first was a set of individual, one-hour town halls hosted by CNN at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, over two nights.  We heard from Governor Deval Laurdine Patrick of Massachusetts for the first time; not a particularly impressive performance, but he has a calm, level-headed, cogent message.

            Friday evening, another Democratic candidate debate hosted by ABC News, Apple News, WMUR, also at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire, in advance of the New Hampshire Primary this coming Tuesday.  The level and intensity of fireworks increased.  The messages of each candidate are essentially the same.  What is different and unique is how each candidate handles her/himself in adversity with difficult questions or criticism.  Buttigieg still performs well, but I think it was Amy Klobuchar that stood out well above the others.  So, we look to New Hampshire.

            We have debated the Electoral College for many years in this humble forum.  The Founders and Framers created the Electoral College along with the Senate and other features of the Constitution to recognize the importance of state’s rights.  Yet, those features are under ever-greater pressure.  What Senator McConnell did four years ago was wrong in every possible way, except a Republican tribal perspective.  What the Republicans did on Wednesday may well have put the nail in the coffin for state’s rights and the constitutional construct of this Grand Republic.  Many states have abandoned structural allocation for proportional allocation.  I suspect we may soon see dramatic and perhaps irreparable changes in the foundation of this Grand Republic.  Such is the consequence of tribal or factional division.

            This Grand Republic has been a representative democracy since its inception and institutionalization in 1787.  This country has never been a pure democracy in which individual citizens govern directly by simple majority rule.  We elect our representatives to the federal government every two years.  It is by our process of voting that we affect governmental policy.  In between the elections, we voice our opinions by direct communications with our representatives or by assembly and demonstration.  Voting is caring about your community, city, state, and country.  Not voting, for whatever reason (and there are many), is complacency, apathy, and I will argue a dereliction of duty for a citizen.  If Republicans are the only citizens who take the time or go to the effort to vote, then we will continue to have what we have now.  If we have any hope of ending this current nightmare, every single eligible citizen must register to vote and cast their vote in November.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.942:

Comment to the Blog:

“Had lawyers presented the impeachment defense in any criminal trial, the unfortunate convict could appeal based on incompetent defense.  Just the same, I wish the prosecution had focused on recognizable criminal offenses, of which the Chump has committed many, some openly.  That might not have changed the outcome, but it would have given voters more to think about.

“Brexit has ensued as you noted.  The only new note I’ve heard so far is the possibility of Northern Ireland solving the border issue by leaving the UK.

“As I type this (later than usual in the day), the Iowa caucuses are underway.  I see it as bizarre that a clumsy process in a small and non-representative state sets the tone for all the primaries.  Still and all, they don’t call this the ‘silly season’ for nothing.”

My response to the Blog:

            Hindsight will clarify quickly regarding the decisions of the House to form the charges.  As we discussed more than a few times before the impeachment process began, it was a long shot for conviction and removal given the make-up of the Senate.  The debate over the structure of the prosecution will go on for decades.  I think they did a Herculean job given the constraints they faced.  Just as the BIC stonewalled the House investigation effort in arguing he was not given due process when he refused multitudinous invitations to participate in the process, he would undoubtedly do the same if the House had issued criminal charges, the BIC would claim criminal charges should be tried in a court of law, but he is immune from criminal charges.  No matter what they did, he would be defiant and obstructive, which is exactly what happens when a man with his personality flaws gains the power and authority of the presidency.  Criminal conduct was clearly and expansively documented in the Special Counsel’s Report and in the House Impeachment substantiation document [H.Rept.116-346].  The Republicans argued he was not charged with any crime, and especially not with “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”  If he had been charged with crimes, they would have argued he cannot be charged—he is the president.  So, the House took their shot; the outcome was as we expected for the Republican-controlled Senate.

            We shall see what happens in the wake of Brexit.  The disintegration of the UK would not be positive for anyone, but what will be, will be.  We shall bear witness.

            Yes, and as of this writing, we still await the results of the Iowa Caucuses.  As someone observed, we may well have the results of the New Hampshire Primary vote before we get the certified Iowa results.  I suspect the consequences may well be the death knell for the caucus process.  The caucus approach was always very cumbersome, fraught with risk, and an invitation to manipulation—a neat, democratic concept, but still . . .  The silly season marches on.

 . . . Round two:

“My preference for recognizable criminal charges on the criminal occupying the White House wasn’t about the legal side. We knew the Senate wouldn’t convict.  My hope was to make a clearer impression on the voters.

“A Balkanized Great Britain would be as uncomfortable an island as it once was.  However, Ireland is already relatively prosperous and would probably continue so.

“Buttigieg won in Iowa?  That’s odd.  I agree that caucuses are kind of bizarre.  Maybe the entire primary process needs a look.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            True; agreed.  It would have been better for We, the People, but the lawyers would have gone crazy.  As I said earlier, I think the House did the best they could, given the constraints they faced.

            Quite true; yet, what will be will be.  The British citizens, who chose to take the referendum question seriously and voted, spoke, made their opinions known in votes, and HMG finally executed their instructions.  I am not a fan of popular referendum for one primary reason—we cannot possibly know or have access to what needs to be considered for such monumental votes.  We must trust our representatives to do the research, consider the consequences, and do the correct thing.  I suspect there will be more than a few who will look back and regret what was done.  Iacta alea est!

            Buttigieg has not won, yet.  He is still leading, but by only 0.1%, with something like 96% precincts reporting.  I do not think his showing was odd.  He has performed admirably.  To me, the caucus process was a noble concept in democracy, but as with all processes involving human interaction, it is fraught with the risk of abuse.

 . . . Round three:

“The Brexit ‘die’ is cast indeed.  Now for the law of unforeseen consequences. 

“I'm somewhat in agreement about the referendum.  If a question is too complex for an either/or answer, our elected or selected representatives (I don't trust some of them, regardless of whether people tell me to) need to sort through it until either the question can be simplified, or they resolve the issue.  Simpler issues, such as a governor being too corrupt or whether to build a wall somewhere, work well enough by referendum.  Also, issues the government fails to address can be remedied via the (related) initiative, and have been.

“The caucus process struck me as clumsy at best when I first heard of it, sometime in the 1970s.  It's somewhat suited to a rural area where people have plenty of leisure time and transportation resources but not enough information if such a place exists.  We shall see what comes out of the current fiasco.  I'll note that software provided by friends of Hillary Clinton is part of today's specific problem.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Oh my, yes . . . the law of unintended consequences.  I just hope for the British people and all of us frankly that those consequences are not too disruptive.  What will be, will be.

            I use as an example of my resistance to popular referendum the Kansas vote on a state constitutional amendment in 2005 that read as,

(a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.

Essentially, by this wording, the referendum asked voters if they approved of any other form of marriage beyond traditional heterosexual, monogamous marriage.  The question did not ask whether the state was acting properly by imposing its will on a private matter between consenting adults.  This to me was the classic moral projection imposed by a simple willful majority of citizens without regard to the evolving judicial position with respect to individual and privacy rights.  I was in the minority that voted against that amendment referendum.  As we have discussed many times, I remain opposed to simple majority rule because it is far too easy to achieve minority abuse as we saw with the Jim Crow laws in the South.  Yes, there are some questions that can be resolved by referendum, but I believe those questions are quite limited in scope.

            I have no basis to assess your statement of where the Iowa Caucus application software came from, so I will not debate that aspect.  The longer the Iowa results take to achieve, the worse it is for our electoral system.  I was and remain in favor of Iowa and New Hampshire being the lead states in the primary process, but this debacle in Iowa is testing my support.

 . . . Round four:

“The referendum to which you referred ought to have been disallowed due to its infringement on civil rights.  Others can be appropriate.

“The software in question is an app provided by a company with several conflicts of interest.  From Wikipedia's article ‘2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses’:

This caucus has been the subject of controversy due to a delay in reporting the results, which stemmed in part from the Iowa Democratic Party's decision to use an untested and inexpensive mobile app for results reporting. The app was criticized for its lack of user-friendliness, openness to potential hacks and data intercepts, and alleged conflict of interest due to the company behind the app selling separate services to campaigns associated with Kirsten Gillibrand, a PAC founded by Tom Steyer, Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and connections to former staffers for Hillary Clinton, among others.  Further controversy has arisen from errors and inconsistencies regarding the calculation and reporting of District and State Delegates (SDE) in several caucus locations, including satellite caucuses.  The controversies surrounding the caucuses have prompted DNC Chairman Tom Perez to call for a recanvass.

Please note that the conflicts all involve centrists/DNC-connected people.

“I could understand a single national primary day or some process other than what the two parties are doing now.  The entire primary process has become ridiculous and extremely expensive.  Caucuses stand out as a poor procedure within that process.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Agreed.  It is in the boundaries of “appropriate” where the debate lays.

            Interesting discussion about the Iowa Caucus application genesis.  However, it reads like propaganda, which makes me suspicious.  I do not have the time to validate the information.  Iowa is reporting 100% of precincts reporting. The DNC has requested a recanvassing, but Iowa state rules require a candidate (only) can request such an action.

            I cannot see a single primary day.  The primary elections are the only means to draw the attention of the candidates.  I see this question in a similar light as the Electoral College.  We need candidates to pay attention to the states, not just the population.  As I said earlier, the Iowa Caucuses 2020 debacle may well be the death knell of that technique.  I do believe the Iowa Caucuses were paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party rather than the state.

 . . . Round five:

“I suppose at least part of the truth about the Iowa caucuses will be revealed, just not in time to influence the rest of the primaries.

“I'm not seeing the point of ‘the states, not just the population.’  The office at hand is President of the United States, not the President of Iowa, Nevada, et al. as separate entities.  Statewide issues might well concern Members of Congress, but the President is the President of the entire country, or should be.  I'll note that the Chump favors specific States when he can.  That's unfair but is the result of the Electoral College.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Indeed.  The Iowa Democratic Party is indicating 100% precincts reporting, but they have yet to certify or validate the results.  They may have a waiting period for any candidate to request a recount.  Yes, the truth will eventually come to us.  The New Hampshire Primary election is in a couple of days.  We move on.

            Just as you have consistently argued, the only thing that should count is the individual citizen regardless of where they live.  If we wish to disenfranchise flyover country, then that is a way to do it quite effectively.  If the states do not matter, U.S. citizens who are residents of Iowa or Kansas (et al) would quite likely never see or interact with a presidential candidate.  The recognition of the states has been institutionalized and codified in the Constitution for 230+ years; it has served us well.  I do not see a compelling case for abandoning the structure that has gotten us this far.  I understand and appreciate the frustration with the 2016 election results; they are truly difficult to swallow, and the BIC has proven that frustration in spades.  Yet, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            The BIC’s favoring certain states or groups of people is a function of paternalism and contrasts with his vindictive spirit.  All dictators must favor those who support them while he condemns those who resist him.  The BIC is acting like the dictator he thinks he is.  He is a vindictive, spiteful, small-minded man; he is a despicable human being; but we knew all that before the election.  Yes, he (Republicans) used the Electoral College to overcome a significant deficit in popular votes; he used the rules; Hillary did not.  We have the result.  And, if citizens do vote regardless their residency, then we will likely get more of the same.

 . . . Round six:

“Iowa presages a repeat of 2016. The clumsy ‘surge’ of Buttigieg differs only in how quickly it was detected.  People will not turn out to vote for a corporate drone, no matter how much the DNC tries to guilt them into it.

“Counting votes equally disenfranchises no individual.  Do you really expect each of 250 million U.S. adults to ‘see or interact with’ any candidate ever?

“The rules would be significantly harder to manipulate under ‘one voter, one vote’ because it would have to be done on a national basis, not just in a limited number of states.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            You may well be correct.  For better or worse, I refuse to join or be identified with any political party.  As a consequence, I am relegated to choosing from what candidates the various parties present to us in November.  So it shall be.

            No I do not.  I for one do not subscribe to such crowd events, and I am an unimportant, common citizen, so I am not likely to meet eye-to-eye with any candidate. The last and only presidential candidate I met eye-to-eye was Barry Goldwater—he made a helluva impression on a 16-year-old boy.  Nonetheless, many others seek such encounters.  The Iowa and New Hampshire events mark the interest of so many to such encounters.

            So you say.  It’s simple; change the Constitution.

Another contribution:

“Good day again Cap, trust you are about! Haven’t heard you mention the BICs ‘snake oil’ for a while-things must be getting serious-yes we’ve had considerable cover of the Iowa process-I must say as a complete outsider I did pick my favourite for the job.”

My reply:

            Yeah, the BIC’s snake-oil is ever present, I’m afraid.  Yes, things in the colonies continue to worsen.  The BIC is unrelenting.  With impeachment destined to fail today, our only hope for salvation is the November election.  Everyone must vote; it is their sacred duty and obligation as a citizen.

            The Iowa Caucuses debacle is an embarrassment, but it is reality.  We still do not have the official results.  Next up, the New Hampshire Primary vote will take place next Tuesday, and should be much quicker.

            I’ll bite.  Who is your favorite?

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)