Thoughts from the Middle:

The Way – Living with Multiple Deities

By

 Robert James Fischer

Most Christians, and for that matter many people of other faiths, follow a “way” of life.  From a Christian perspective, the “way” is through Jesus Christ.  A problem is created when the only way accepted is through Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or Vishnu.  Does any one religion have a monopoly on the “way”?  The answer is simple if approached from the perspective of common beliefs.  C.S. Lewis, the noted Christian author, did a fine job looking at commonalities in his work The Abolition of Man.  However, the belief differences often cloud the commonalities shared among almost all religions, and thus make the answer more difficult for many people.

Let’s face it, regardless of our beliefs, we all share this planet.  We all have a mother and father.  We develop friendships and enemies.  We love, and often marry and have our own children.  We experience joy and pain.  We die.  Is that it?  Most of us want to believe that there is more to existence than our 76 average years of human life.  Of the 6 billion people on earth, 5 billion believe that there is in fact some existence that transcends this life.  Another 1 billion are either agnostic or atheistic.

Of the 5 billion humans who believe in some form of afterlife, approximately 1/3 are Christian, 1/3 Muslims, and 1/3 Hindu.  All three of these major religions believe in the following which I have paraphrased from C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man, “Illustration of Tao.”

• The Law of General Beneficence  — Love all that surrounds you, do no harm
• The Law of Special Beneficence – Respect all beings
• Duties to Parents, Elderly, and Ancestors – Care for your elders
• Duties to Children and Posterity – Love your children, make the world safe
• The Law of Justice – Sexual justice, honesty, court justice
• The Law of Good Faith and Veracity – Tell the truth
• The Law of Mercy – Help those in need
• The Law of Magnanimity – Give of yourself, don’t be afraid when fighting for Good Way

All adhere to a basic concept of right and wrong and duty to fellow human beings.

Character Counts sums these same characteristics as follows:

• Trustworthy
• Respectful
• Responsible
• Fair
• Caring
• A good citizen

Does it make sense that the only “way” is through just one religion?  Religion is a product of its culture.  All major religions have undergone change since their founders left this temporal existence.  In fact, most would probably not recognize the religions that they established.

Let’s reflect on the religion that I know best- Christianity.  I truly believe that Jesus would not recognize and would probably not accept all that is presented today as Christian doctrine.  Shortly following his death, Jesus’ followers began the process of interpretation of the “apostles.”  James, the Brother of Jesus, became the head of the Church in Jerusalem.  Peter eventually traveled to Rome.  Thomas was extent in Egypt.  Mary Magdalene may have traveled to what we now know as France.  Paul, a latecomer, traveled extensively among the Gentiles and clashed with James and Peter on basic theology.

Other first century “Christians” also debated Jesus’ theology.  For example, Eusebus, Marcion, Augustine, Philo discussed the meaning of Jesus’ ministry and death.

In truth, the codification and unification of Christian theology did not come to be until 412CE at the Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, the Holy Roman Emperor.  Constantine wanted to control the diverse populations that lived under his control.  The advantage of bringing Christians and other religions together was obvious.  After 40 years of debate, political intrigue and assassinations, a creed was established.  Much of what we call Christianity was born.

Later, Popes Gregory and Innocent added the concepts of original sin, to the Nicene concepts of Christ divinity and the trinity.  These actions finalized the early Christian blueprint.

Those who held other, at one time widely accepted beliefs, were labeled as heretics.  Thus, their views were quashed.

The point is, Christianity as we know it today is a result of who “won out” in those early battles after Jesus died.  For example, the beliefs of James were mostly quashed by the sects of the more powerful Peter and Paul.

In conclusion, the founders of our major religions would likely not recognize the faiths that bear their names.  As followers of any given faith, we need to realize that those in control often make rules that benefit the organization.  These rules may not have any foundation in the actual teachings of Mohamed, Jesus, or Confucius.

Religions are an important component of society.  The values that they teach are important in making sound decisions.  But we should not let dogma get in the way of the true messages as outlined by C.S. Lewis and paraphrased early in this writing!

Thoughts from the Middle

Why Should Something Be Done to Eliminate Gerrymandering?

By

Robert James Fischer

What is Gerrymandering?

In simple terms Gerrymandering is the process of drawing political boundaries that give a particular party an advantage over the opposing party.  Gerrymandering is NOT what our founding fathers foresaw.  They envisioned a representative government that is proportional to the various views of its people.  For example if 60% of the population is from the Elephant Party and 40% are from the Donkey Party, then elected representatives should be in the same proportion.

The practice is named after Governor Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts.  In 1812 the Governor, concerned over the growing strength of the Federalist Party, managed to pass a law that allowed for redistricting.  The sole purpose of this legislation was to create voting districts that gave advantage to the Governor’s Democratic-Republicans.  One of the districts was so distorted that Boston Gazette journalist Elkanah Tisdale labeled the salamander shaped district “The Gerry-mander.”  This term has continued through the present day.

Even though in 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that districts should reflect substantial equality of population, many jurisdictions continue to create politically advantageous districts.  While the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases regarding partisan gerrymandering, it has not established a clear standard.  In 2018 the Court looked at cases in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Maryland.  According to Steve Vladeck, University of Texas Law School professor, “The common thread in the court’s gerrymandering decisions this term (2018) has been to generally make it harder for plaintiffs to bring these claims, and to generally allow states more flexibility and deference in drawing congressional and state district lines.”  The issue that clouds what is blatantly political is the Constitutional issue of “one person, one vote.”  The key seems to be taken from North Carolina case, Gill v. Whitford, where on a 9-0 vote, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove that “concrete and particularized” injury denied anyone the right to vote. (de Vogue, Ariane and Watkins, Eli, CNN, June 25, 2018).

A Simple Example

Here is a simple example of how Gerrymandering works, based on materials presented by Christopher Ingraham (Ingraham, How to Steal an Election: a Visual Guide, www.washingtonpost.com, downloaded 3/30/2018)

Using Ingram’s model, imagine a state with 50,000 people.  Thirty thousand belong to the Donkey Party while the rest belong to the Elephant Party.  Also imagine that they all live in an even grid with Donkeys on one side of the state and Elephants on the other.  For voting purposes we need to divide the state into five districts.  Each district will send a representative to the state capitol. Based on the founding fathers’ conception, representation should be proportional.  That means there would be 3 Donkey Party representatives and 2 Elephant party representatives.

Given the geographic distribution of voters in the state, it is possible to create 5 districts that will result in the desired representation.  (See Figure 1).

Figure 1

Fair Representation

District        District                      District                            District                    District

1                   2                                    3                                        4                             5

Donkeys win 3 districts; Elephants win 2 districts

However, once the Donkey Party controls the state legislature, through the process of Gerrymandering they are allowed to redraw the districts.  If they draw the new districts as shown in Figure 2, the representation is no longer proportional and is unfair to the Elephant Party.  The new district system gives all 5 representatives to the Donkey Party and none to the Elephant Party.

Figure 2

Unfair but Compact Representation

Donkeys win all 5 districts; Elephants have none

A third scenario would have the Elephant Party win a majority in the legislature.  Once they have control of the government, through Gerrymandering they could redraw the districts as shown in Figure 3.  In this scenario the Elephant Party would likely gain control of 3 districts.  The Donkey Party, with 60% of the voters, would likely win only 2 districts.

Figure 3

Neither Fair nor Compact Representation

Donkeys win 2 districts; Elephants win 3

In many areas, the gerrymandered districts are extremely convoluted appearing as thin wavy lines or other distorted figures.

What should be done?

Given the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision, jurisdictions need to be held accountable for their redistricting.  This simple step would ensure that the vision of our founding fathers is restored.  Today’s technology allows for computer programs that can create districts representative of population diversity. Some state legislatures have tried one of the following:

• Advisory commissions – composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This is an advisory body.  The legislators retain redistricting powers.
• Backup commissions—composed of non-legislators, appointed by legislators. This group provides input when an impasse on redistricting is apparent.
• Politician commissions—composed of non-elected, but political officials.
• Independent commissions—composed of non-legislators and non-public officials, generally prohibited from running for public office for a specified period after the completion of their term on the commission. This type of commission is viewed as being the most independent of political considerations.

Thoughts from the Middle

A Hard Look at American Democracy:

The Need for Reform

By

Robert Fischer

Over the past several decades, an increasing number of Americans have lost faith in our government.  I have written that our representative democracy was conceived as a government “by the People.”  However, our founding fathers, in order to assure enlightened decision making, created a representative system.  While the system and their ideas have been modified through amendments over 200 plus years, it is apparent that the time has come to review our system and make some much needed adjustments.  Individuals who enter the political arena today are far removed from those who were elected to represent Americans during its first 100 years of existence.  The gentleman farmer politician, who was reluctant to run for political office but pressured to represent their neighbor’s interest, is no more.  The majority of the current political players are what most would call career politicians.

Our government today is dysfunctional.  Tax payer dollars are spent without adequate accountability, sometimes on projects that seem to have no purpose. Consider the Alaska Bridge to nowhere!  Troop commitments in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria drain billions from our domestic economy.  After years of military conflict in these regions, we have little to show for our investment.  We not only have lost dollars, but numerous military and civilian lives.  Party politics tend to carry more power than the good of the nation.  Bipartisanship is often lacking.  As I write this piece, the federal government is shut down over a political battle over a southern border wall.  Gridlock!!  Something is very wrong.

Whatever is a wrong needs to be fixed.  Who needs to fix the problem?  We the People!!  The Constitution put us in charge; we can fix the system. The rules governing elections and the bureaucracy surrounding our legislative process need to be reviewed and changed when necessary.

Let’s begin at the beginning.  Our founding fathers believed that citizens would select the persons who would be their representatives.  While this was mostly true in the early decades, it wasn’t long before party politics became an equal partner in the selection process.  Today, parties select candidates that they believe will help the party.  The party not only selects the candidates, but by using professional writers they also shape the candidates words for a political platform.  The days of speeches given “off the cuff” or written by the candidate are long gone.  To make matters worse, the parties are controlled by big money interests.  These same political parties also control the electoral process through what is called gerrymandering.  I’ll have more to say on this in a future “Thoughts.”

What does this mean? The idea that anyone can become president is a pipe dream. It takes so much money to run for major political offices that the average person cannot afford the expense. He/she must rely on financial contributions; and contributions come from those who believe that the candidate will support their agenda. Thus, the candidate makes campaign promises that benefit those who have contributed to his/her cause.

Furthermore, our candidates are generally supported by the major political parties. These parties select candidates with one primary criterion in mind: the person’s ability to ensure the party’s success! Through polling, the parties determine what message “sells” with the public. And from that point on, the professional writers shape the message for the candidate. Thus in most cases, the public never really knows the candidate’s authentic beliefs and values.

After years of listening to campaign rhetoric, many voters have turned cynical. In many elections, the votes end up casting their ballot for the least offensive candidate, or they simply don’t vote. Voters yearn for a true message – one delivered from the heart, not a rehearsed speech written by political writers.

What can we do about our suspicion that as voters, we are being sold a message? How can we get people with integrity, and devotion to ethical principles, to run for office?

First of all, we need to broaden the field of candidates – not limit the field to just candidates from the two major parties. This would ensure that we have candidates representing more than just far-left views and far-right views.

Second, we need to get “big money” out of the game. Unfortunately, money and politics seem to go “hand in glove.” When each party raises over $500 million in an election cycle, there is likely something being bought – i.e., policy decisions. It can be assumed that many senators and representatives who have been financed by big money often do not vote based on personal convictions or the will of their constituents.  Of course, the money problem is an entire discussion in and of itself. The bottom line, however, is that there is far too much money involved in politics, and because of moneyed interests, our democratic ideal is undermined. In other words, all votes are not equal!

It appears that the American people have failed to realize that “we are the government.”  Instead of governing, we have allowed the political parties, moneyed interests and various institutions to take the power of government away from the people and place it within their own hands.

For the optimists out there; we can make a change.  Margaret Mead optimistically said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Thoughts from the Middle

Corruption in the Federal Executive Branch

By

Robert Fischer

While no one should be surprised to find out that criminal actions are sometime committed by people in power, I was shocked to note the disparity among the criminal indictments under various presidents Nixon through Trump.  While I was prepared for the Watergate fallout under Nixon, I was more than shocked to see the large number of criminal charges (21) that have occurred in less than 2 years of the Trump presidency.  The following Table has appeared in a number of sources over the past year, updated for the Trump presidency.

Executive Branch Criminal Activities

By Presidential Administration

Years in                   Indictments         Convictions             Prison

Office_____________________________________

Trump                   1.8                          89                           24                           2

Obama                 8                              0                             0                             0

Bush, W               8                              16                           16                           9

Clinton                  8                              2                             1                             1

Bush, GW            4                              1                             1                             1

Reagan                 8                              26                           16                           8

Carter                   4                              1                             0                             0

Ford                       2.4                          1                             1                             1

Since I couldn’t find the actual source for this research in order to validate the numbers, I have included my own tabulation of charges filed against executive administration personnel.  This information was gleaned from Wikipedia and recent news sources.

Since January 2017, 21 persons associated with Donald Trump’s Executive Branch have been indicted or accused of various criminal activities– not the 89 figure listed in the above table.  This discrepancy may be accounted for by including indictments of Russians who have been accused of interfering with the 2016 elections.  However, the 21 person figure is still striking since it represents less than 1.8 years.

Person                                    Position                                              Charges                                                                Conviction

Paul Manafort                   Champaign Chairman       bank fraud, filing false tax returns          yes

Scott Pruitt                         Director EPA                        ethics violations                                              resigned

Albert Kelly                         Director EPA Superfund   bank fraud                                                       fined

Pasquale Perrotta            Security Director EPA       improper contracts                                       resigned

Samantha Dravis              Sr. Counsel Off.  Policy     no show employee                                       resigned

George Papadopoulos   Foreign Policy Advisor      making false statements                            pleaded guilty

Michael Flynn                    National Sec. Advisor       lying to the FBI                                                                pleaded guilty

William Bradford              Dept. of Energy                                  allegations of racial slurs                             resigned

Tom Price                            Sec. HHS                                improper spending                                       resigned

Brenda Fitzgerald             Dir. Disease Control          bought tobacco stock                                   resigned

Taylor Weyeneth             Dep.Dir. Nat. Drug Policy lack of qualifications                                     resigned

David Sorenson                                speech writer                      domestic violence                                         resigned

Vivieca  Simpson              Chief of Staff VA                altered emails                                                 resigned

Rob Porter                          staff secretary                     domestic violence                                         resigned

Rick Gates                           Dept. Campaign Chair      lying to investigators re Ukraine              pleaded guilty

Tony Tooke                        Chief, Forest Service        sexual harassment/retaliation                 resigned

Michael Cohen                  Attorney to President      tax evasion, bank fraud,

illegal campaign contributions,

false statements                                            pleaded guilty

Ralph Zinke                         Sec.  Interior                        improper spending                                       resigned

Konstantin Kilimnik         Aid to Manafort                                 lying/bribery                                                    indicted

Alex Vanderzwan            Dutch Attorney                   lying                                                                     indicted

Richard Pinerdo                                owner Auct. Essistance  fraud                                                                   pleaded guilty

Under Barrack Obama, nine people were accused of improper behavior:

Deann Stone                      Dir Alabama Dept Ed       improper spending                                        convicted

Katherine Archuleta       Dir Personnel Mang.       cyber intrusions, data theft                         resigned

Hilary Clinton                     Sec. of State                       email controversy                                            no charges

Eric Shinseki                       Sec. Veteran’s Affairs    lies re time to treatment                              resigned

Steven Miller                     Acting  Comm. IRS           IRS scandal re investigations                       resigned

Eric Holder                          Attorney General            contempt of Congress                                   no charges

Terence Flynn                   NLR Board member        leaking information                                         resigned

Martha Johnson               Dir. GSA                               Vegas training scandal                                   resigned

David Petraeus                 Dir. CIA                                 mishandling classified material                   pleaded guilty

During George W. Bush’s administration, 25 individuals were involved in questionable behavior

Joseph Schmitz                                 DD Inspector Gen.           obstruction of justice                                     resigned

Francis Harvey                   Sec. Army                            Walter Reed scandal                                       resigned

Felipe Sixto                         Duty Dir. Public Liaison   misuse of grant dollars                                  resigned

Timothy Goeglein            Asst. to President            plagiarism                                                            resigned

Scott Bloch                          Special Counsel                 criminal contempt of Congress                  pleaded guilty

Lewis Libby                         Chief of Staff Cheney     perjury/obstruction of justice                    convicted

Alphonso Jackson            Sec. HUD                             cronyism/favoritism                                       resigned

Karl Rove                             Sr. Advisor Pres.               Improper political influence                        resigned

Richard Griffin                   Asst. Sec. Dip. Sec.          failure to supervise private contractors  resigned

Howard Krongard            Insp. Gen. State Dept.   interfering with investigations                   resigned

Lurita Doan                         Admin GSO                         political activity at work                                 resigned

1. Steven Griles Dep. Sec. Interior obstruction of justice                                     found guilty

Philip Cooney                    Chair Coun. Env. Qual.   editing govt. reports                                       resigned

Jack Abramoff                   Lobbyist w/ ties to White House                                                                               found guilty

Kyle Foggo                          Dir. CIA                                 services fraud                                                    pleaded guilty

Julie Mac Donald              Dept Asst. Sec. Inter.     providing govt. document to dev.            Resigned

Claude Allen                       Advisor to Pres.                                felony theft                                                        found guilty

Lester Crawford               Comm. FDA                        conflict of interest                                           resigned

John Shaw                          Under Sec. Defense       corruption                                                           fired

Bernard Kerik                    nominee Homeland Sec. employment illegal alien/tax fraud        pleaded guilty

Thomas Scully                    Admin CMS                        withholding information                               resigned

Janet Rehnquist                               Inspect. Gen. HHS           delay of investigation                                     resigned

Carl Truscott                       Dir. ATF                                                lavish spending/misuse of resources      resigned

John Atchison                    Asst. U.S. Attorney         sex with juvenile                                              suicide

John Farren                        Dep. WH counsel             attempted murder                                          found guilty

In addition, during the George W. Bush years, citizens saw the Walter Reed Medical Center scandal,  Lawyergate, Bush White House email controversy, WMD/Yellowcake forgery; Coalition Provisional Authority Cash Payment Scandal; Valerie Flame affair; NSA warrantless surveillance; and John Yoo memo scandal.

During Bill Clinton’s time in office, there were 4 persons in the executive branch accused of criminal behavior:

Bill Clinton                           President                            impeached for perjury/obstruction         acquitted

Ronald Blackley                 Chief of Staff Agricul.     perjury                                                                 found guilty

David Watkins                   Dir. Office Admin.            improper use of govt. equipment            resigned

Darleen Druyun                                Undersec. Air Force        contract violations                                           found guilty

Under George H.W. Bush there were 6 allegations of misconduct.  The most significant dealt with the Iran-Contra affair where 6 individuals under investigation were granted clemency.  One additional person was convicted:

Catalina Villalpando         Sec. Treasurer                   obstruction of justice/tax evasion            pleaded guilty

Ronald Reagan’s administration was the subject of a number of investigations, including the Iran-Contra affair, Operation Ill Wind, the Housing and Urban Development scandal, Wedtech, and the saving and loan scandal.  Thirty seven individuals were accused of various crimes or misconduct.

Melvyn Paisley                  Asst. Sec. Navy                 accepting bribes                                               pleaded guilty

James Gaines                    Dep. Asst. Sec. Navy       theft                                                                      resigned

Victor Cohen                      Dep. Asst. Sec. Air Force accepting bribes                                             pleaded guilty

Samuel Pierce                   Sec. HUD                             bribery                                                                 not charged

James Watt                        Sec. Interior                       perjury/obstruction of justice                    found guilty

Deborah Dean                   Exec. Sec. S. Pierce          perjury/conspiracy/bribery                         found guilty

Philip Winn                         Asst. Sec. HUD                  bribery                                                                 pleaded guilty

Thomas Demery               Asst. Sec. HUD                  bribery/obstruction of justice                    pleaded guilty

Joseph Strauss                  Spec. Asst. Sec. HUD      bribery                                                                 found guilty

Silvio DeBartolomeis       various posts HUD           perjury/bribery                                                                found guilty

Edwin Meese                    Attorney General            bribery                                                                 resigned

John Fedders                     Sec. Exchange Comm.    battery of wife                                                  resigned

Emanuel Savas                  Asst. Sec. HUD                  using staff for personal business                               resigned

Oliver North                       National Sec. Council      diverted funds                                                  found guilty

Casper Weinberger         Sec. Defense                     perjury/obstruction of justice                    pardoned

Robert McFarlane            National Sec. Advisor     withholding evidence                                    plea bargained

Elliott Abrams                    Asst. Sec. State                 withholding evidence                                    plea bargained

Alan Fiers                            Chief CIA                             withholding evidence                                    found guilty

Clair George                       Covert Ops CIA                 perjury                                                                 found guilty

Fawn Hill                              O. North’s Sec.                  conspiracy/destroying documents           immunity

John Poindexter               National Sec. Advisor     conspiracy/obstruction of justice             found guilty                                                                                                                                                                                        overturned by                                                                                                                                                                                   Supreme Court

Duane Clarridge                                CIA                                         perjury                                                                 pardoned

Richard Secord                  Major Gen. Air Force      false statements                                              pleaded guilty

Albert Hakim                      Businessman                     supplement O North’s salary                      pleaded guilty

Michael Deaver                                Dep Chief of Staff Pres. perjury                                                                 pleaded guilty

Anne Gorsuch                   EPA Chief                            contempt of Congress                                   resigned

Rita Lavelle                         EPA Administrator           misuse of funds/perjury                                               found guilty

Louis Giuffrida                   Dir. Emerg. Mang.            fraud, waste                                                      resigned

Fred Villella                         Dep Dir. Emerg. Mang.  fraud, waste, sexual assault                        resigned

1. Lynn Helms Dir. FAA fraud                                                                     settled,                                                                                                                                                                                                resigned

Bob Nimmo                        Chief Veterans Admin. fraud                                                                     resigned

Peter Voss                          US Postal service              theft/accepting payoffs                                                pleaded guilty

Carlos Campbell                Asst. Sec. Comm.             fraud

Jim Petro                             US Attorney                       tipping off witness                                          fired

William Kennedy              US Attorney                       smuggling                                                            fired

Marjory Mecidenburg   Dep. Asst. HHR                  improper use of funds                                   resigned

Guy Fiske                            Dep. Sec. Comm.             conflict of interest                                           resigned

Jimmy Carter

There were no resignations, indictments, or allegations of misconduct during the four years of President Carter’s administration.

Gerald Ford

Earl Butz                               Sec. of Agriculture           racial slurs                                                           resigned

There are several conclusions that can be made from the above.  I’ll leave you, the reader, to make draw your own.

Thoughts from the Middle

Understanding Impeachment

By

Robert Fischer

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Legal scholars have held that high crimes and misdemeanors do not necessarily require a statutory crime. What does impeachment mean?  To impeach is the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.  In the case of President Donald Trump, the process therefore calls into question the President’s integrity on issues related to his election as President.  Specifically, there are those who allege that he conspired to keep information from the public regarding alleged affairs with two different women.  There are others who believe that the President was involved with Russians who sought to influence our elections.  First, let me be clear that what a person does in his/her personal life is generally not illegal.  Second, it is not to be unexpected that foreign governments try to influence the outcome of many activities in other countries.  In fact, the United States has been involved in many efforts to overthrow governments that are seen as unfavorable to our own interests.  However, the issue in the first case (the alleged affairs) is whether President Trump conspired with his attorney to keep information that might have impacted the election results from the electorate.  In the case of Russia, the question is whether the President participated in decision making regarding Russian interests in controlling the outcome of the election.  In either instance, the President, if involved, is a part of illegal activity.

There are many in the government who believe that the President has in his actions committed crimes to assist in his efforts to become President.  In this case, the political process is impeachment.  A sitting president cannot be indicted, prosecuted, or tried while serving in office.  The president must first be impeached and removed from office before beging charged.  The process begins in the House of Representatives, with the House Judiciary Committee.  If the Committee decides to question the President’s integrity, the Chairperson proposes a resolution that calls for a formal inquiry.  Following the inquiry, a formal resolution is sent to the full House with a statement on whether to impeach or not impeach.  If a majority of the representatives vote affirmatively on any one article, the President is impeached.

At this point the impeachment might be considered the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case.  The case is referred to the Senate, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the judge. The prosecutors are members from the House of Representatives.  The jury is the entire Senate.  The President is allowed representation.  The case plays out with the House prosecutors presenting their evidence.  Once the case has been presented, the Senate debates, and then votes on the various articles of impeachment.  It requires a two-thirds vote on each article for a conviction. If convicted on any article of impeachment, the Senate may vote to remove the President from office.  At that point criminal charges may be filed by any court of original jurisdiction.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee are currently considering the following allegations:

• Collusion with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election results
• Obstruction of justice by paying to silence persons who have information that might impact on election results
• Massive fraud against the people of the United States by manipulation of the media through fiscal and illegal personal contacts

It is important to remember that in our system, a person is innocent until the case is presented and the jury finds the charges sustainable.  While I have a personal opinion regarding President Trump’s culpability, it is the role of the House (prosecution) to determine if the allegations have enough factual basis to impeach (indict).  If so, it is the responsibility of the Senate to act as a jury in a hearing where Chief Justice Roberts (judge) presides, the House representatives (prosecutor) present the case, the President’s lawyer (defense) presents a case for the president refuting the article of impeachment claims, and the Senate (jury) comes to a decision (verdict).

Thoughts from the Middle

School Prayer and Christianity

By Robert Fischer

I had planned to write my next article on the influence of the dollar and political decisions.  However, two days ago, I received a forwarded email from a former high school classmate and friend.  The email she forwarded was a well written piece regarding the states of Maryland, Michigan and Arizona.  The author noted that these states were allowing Muslim students to prayer at school, something that the author says Christian students weren’t allowed to do.  The article went on to make claims about the Muslim prayer and prayer day in the United States.  I couldn’t let the comments go without correcting the author’s misstatements.  I wrote the following:

I’ve been concerned about the misconceptions regarding religion for a number of years.  This email confirms that truths do not always tell the full story.  First, let’s remember that our founding fathers were concerned about religious persecution.  That’s why they included “freedom of religion” in our Constitution.  We are all “free” to believe whatever we wish regarding God, creation and the universe.  As a former school board member and President, I am very familiar with the school prayer issue.  At one time I had two board members who wanted to start each board meeting with a prayer.  A third member, an ordained minister, was asked what type of prayer we should offer given the diversity of opinions in our community and the Supreme Court decision regarding prayer.  He jokingly suggested it might start with “To whom it may concern,” or “thoughts to the universe.”

In  1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school “sponsored” prayer was a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.  It did not make it illegal for students to pray as individuals.  Students are free to pray alone or in groups during the school day as long as it does not disrupt school activities.  As for the Maryland, Michigan, Arizona references to allowing Muslims to pray at school, while true, it is also true that Christians and others may pray or meditate.

Presidents Truman’s and Reagan’s prayer day recognized prayer, not a specific religion. Citizens are free to observe that day just as they observe others.   It is not true that Obama declared the US no longer a Christian nation (325,000,000 Americans, over 220,000,000 self-declared Christians}.  And, he did not dismiss the 21^st Annual National Day of prayer.  Whether Muslim Prayer Day was observed in Washington D.C. near the Capitol Building should not be an issue.  Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.  Muslims may observe prayer day wherever they wish.  Obama did not take part in this event. Claims that Obama encouraged schools to teach the Quran were posted on social media in 2016, but no major/credible news source ever reported on such an event!    This type of undocumented information has no place in a civil discussion!

Our nation has an overwhelming majority of Christians.  The faith is not threatened by those who believe in other gods or no gods.  As a” recovering” Catholic, I believe that today’s Christianity is threatened by its own failure to continue to evolve.  Christianity was not a static religion.  It started with three very different approaches, James (Jewish/Jesus/works movement); Peter’s Christian/Roman church approach and Paul’s Salvation movement.  It took centuries of infighting and bloodshed for the early church to develop the theology of the Council of Nicaea.  It was centuries later that Luther and others challenged the Catholic approach.  I personally will not challenge anyone who has found peace in their belief system.  However, I don’t want them to force their opinions on me!

Thoughts from the Middle

He Said, She Said—

By Robert Fischer

Several weeks ago a last minute introduction of an accusation of sexual assault concerning Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh started something bigger than most Americans clearly understand.  Dr. Christine Blasé-Ford, a credible witness, accused a former classmate of sexual assault when she was 15 and he was 18.  After years of service on the federal bench and having completed what most thought was a thorough vetting process, Kavanaugh, had been assured of approval given the political makeup of the Senate.

What do we make of this situation?  There were three issues at play in this drama– politics, individual rights, and the recent “me too” movement.  What does each contribute to the dilemma?

First, consider the political environment.  Partisan politics has become more bipolar than it has been for many decades.  Republicans are enjoying having control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, and relish their further option of shifting the Judicial branch to a conservative perspective.  In consideration of the move to get as many conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court, the Senate previously blocked President Barrack Obama’s nominee from appointment in order to allow the next President to make the appointment.  They were successful, and President Trump appointed his first conservative Supreme Court judge.  Then the second appointment was stalled by an accusation that benefited the Democrats.  Their view was that by stalling the appointment, they were not only gaining retribution for the Republicans blocking of the Obama appointment, but possibly gaining control over the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate following the November elections.  What was there to gain?  The Democrats really didn’t want a Supreme Court judge who has, in his written works, declared that a sitting President should not be questioned regarding his/her actions while in office.  By blocking the appointment, they hoped to buy time to swing the Senate away from the Kavanaugh appointment.

Second, individual rights have made the legal issue of “innocent until proven guilty” part of our culture.  Every accused person is presumed innocent, and. it is the duty of the accuser to prove that the accusation is “true.” Thus, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the probability of proving an alleged sexual assault was nil.  Dr. Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh was at a party, drunk, and took her to a bedroom, might have been provable through collaborative statements of others at the gathering.  However, no one except Dr. Ford and the accused will ever know what might or might not have happened in that bedroom.  Judge Kavanaugh had to be given the benefit of the doubt since there was no tangible proof of an assault.  Senator Collins, in her statement before the Senate on October 5, 2018, clearly showed her understanding of this principle.  However, if the judge lied to the Committee regarding his attendance at the party (or other behavior), he was a liar and should not have been considered suitable to serve on the Supreme Court.

Third, what about Dr. Ford’s accusations?  It is fortunate that the “me too” movement has again brought to light decades of treating a woman’s accusations as less credible than a man’s denial. Dr. Ford’s experience is far too similar to that of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. The social values of the 1950s through 2000, regarding sexual assault and unwanted sexual advances, are slowly  changing.  Dr. Ford had no known ulterior motive for coming forward with her accusations.  The Senate Judiciary Committee generally found her to be a credible witness, with even President Trump stating that he found her testimony credible.  It is time that society fairly evaluates the way that some men have treated women sexually.   In today’s world, “No,” means “No”.  The old days of “No” means “maybe” or “yes” are gone.  However, the caveat still remains that while the complaint needs to be taken seriously, the presumption of innocence is still there.  There must be proof!  It can’t simply be a “He said, She said.” Accusations cannot be enough to convict!!

Thoughts from the Middle

Why All the Scare Tactics?

By

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

It seems that wherever we turn, the news is almost always negative—global warming, too many guns, too many big city murders, bad weather impacting millions, an influx of illegal immigrants set on killing us all, killer viruses, invasions of predatory insects, terrorist around every corner, and many other sensational headlines.  Is the United States really that dangerous?  I don’t think the facts support most of these exaggerations!  While the reports may be true for specific events, the overall impact is less than most of us are lead to believe.  The following will examine a few of the fears that are prominently promoted by our government officials and the media.

Crime

Does the average American need to worry about being a victim of crime?  No!  The statistics gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that overall crime has been decreasing over the past 20 plus years.

Weather

Do we need to be concerned about the millions in the path of destructive storms?  While weather-related disasters have been increasing for the past 100 years, the number of people dying from them has actually decreased.

Invasion of Illegal Immigrants

Are non-English speaking people invading our lands?  We certainly see more people who look different than most white Americans.  There are plenty of Hispanics, Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians, and others who are now here in the United States.  The irony is that most of the people we see are American citizens, some with several generations of family who have lived here for decades!  While illegal border crossings are an issue, the truth is that the number of illegals has declined over the past 2 decades.  Demographers have predicted that white Americans will be in the minority by 2024.  However, this is a function of past immigration policies encouraging Hispanics, Asians and others to immigrate.  It is also a function of the declining birth rate for white Americans.

Terrorists

After 9/11 many Americans came to believe that there were terrorists lurking everywhere.  We passed the Patriot Act which established the Department of Homeland Security.  We increased security at airports and other mass transit transfer points.  While there are certainly individuals and organizations that harbor ill will toward the United States, most of our mass casualty events have been the result of individual, non-terrorist attacks. With over 30,000 firearm related deaths each year, gun-related deaths exceed any violence associated with terrorism. Our own government tells us that our chance of dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 20 million.  It may actually be that we have more to fear from our own right wing nationalists than from foreign terrorists.  These militia groups have disrupted numerous events over the past 20 years.

The Real Threats

The media and government entities have focused on the above as threats to our way of life, but the real threats are everyday occurrences.  Things like:

• impaired driving fatalities,
• texting while driving injuries and deaths,
• disease and illnesses that do not receive adequate attention and research funding,
• the growing gap between the wealthy and poor,
• the world growth in population,
• the increase in the number of elderly who need “warehousing” since we have failed to deal with the right to die issue,
• a growing problem with general literacy.

More people are injured by texting drivers than from gun violence. Annual gun deaths are over 30,000, but injuries from texting while driving are over 391,000 (3,400 result in death).

The class system in the United States is usually broken down into 3 categories—rich, middle class, and poor, which can be further divided in subcategories.  Within the rich category are the super-rich.  This group makes up approximately 1% of the population, or 320,000 individuals.  Their monthly income exceeds $300,000.   The middle class- middle class comprises 45% of the population (14,400,000) and earn between $60,000 to $75,000 per year.  The middle class- working class comprises 40% of the population (12,800,000), making $30,000 to $40,000 per year. The bottom tier, the poor, constitutes approximately 15% of the population (4,800,000).  They live below the poverty line with incomes ranging from $18,000 to $20,000 per year. The real secret is the emerging class of corporate elites who are multi billionaires.  While liberals and conservatives point fingers at each other, the real issue is globalization.  Companies can make the same product for lower costs in other parts of the world.  They are not willing to pay more to American workers.

The population of the world is now 6.5 billion.  By 2078 it is project to reach 13 billion.  If you are living in a low growth rate country, you don’t feel the pressure created by too many people and too few resources.  We do see the problems of mass starvation in countries where these conditions exist.  The problem can be addressed through birth control.  Unfortunately, there is little attention paid to this, probably our greatest challenge as a species. Although recent studies do indicate that there is hope in the future.

As our population in the United States ages, we are faced with the issue of how to care for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves.  The current solution is a home care system that allows for various types of nursing/supervision, depending on the person’s health.  Independent living is a choice for those who want to be free of the burdens associated with home ownership or rental.  Assisted living is a choice that allows those with limitations to have a care assistant when needed.  Full time nursing care is the third level, and often not a personal choice, but one made by family members.  These Individuals have reached a stage in life where their quality of life makes it difficult to see why life is being maintained. While Oregon, Washington and Vermont have specific laws regarding death with dignity, and Montana and New Mexico have legislation supporting that decision, most of the country does not address this important issue. Those who oppose euthanasia have probably never witnessed the suffering and extremely poor quality of life that many of our elderly experience.

Conclusions

Could it be that as consumers of news, we do not want to face these difficult problems.  Perhaps it is easier to consider the news headlines that are shocking, but have little to do with our own quality of life.

Thoughts from the Middle

Questioning America’s Greatness:

Poverty

By

Robert Fischer

I have always believed that America is the best country in the world.  So imagine how shocked I was to read an article that provided a brief overview of a December 15, 2017 report to the United Nations on poverty in America.  While I have never doubted that we had a portion of the population that was poor, the article not only confirmed this belief, but also indicated that it was much worse than I had imagined.  As a police officer in the 1970s, I saw poor neighborhoods and wondered why a nation so rich in so many ways was unable to solve the problems associated with poverty.  After reading the article, I decided to take a deeper look at the issue.  I still couldn’t believe that our nation might not be prosperous for the majority, as I had assumed.  I wondered what our humanitarian founding fathers would think of their great experiment in a democracy that was supposed to provide for the common good of all Americans.

Extreme Poverty in America – The UN Special Monitor’s Report – A Summary, (Alston, Philip, United Nations Report on the USA, December 15, 2017)

Philip Alston is the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.  He spent 10 days visiting the United States during the latter part of 2017.  During his visit he spoke to state and federal government officials, civil society organizations, and experts on American poverty.  He also talked with many homeless people and individuals living in extreme poverty.  What he saw and reported is more than sad, it is criminal.  For example, there are many people living in poverty who have lost all or most of their teeth because there is very limited dental care for the poor.  He also heard about the increasing number of deaths from opioids, possibly partially created by a broken health care system.  He saw people living next to mountains of coal ash which will likely cause illness and possibly premature death.  To quote Alston, “American exceptionalism was a constant theme in my conversations.  But instead of realizing its founders’ admirable commitments, today’s United States has proved itself to be an exception in far more problematic ways that are shockingly at odds with its immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights.  As a result, contrasts between private wealth and public squalor abound.”  Is Alston correct?  After all, he was only here for 10 days!

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries

This group of 39 countries was established following World War II with a goal of avoiding the mistakes that led to World Wars I and II.  The group’s primary purpose in 1948 (originally called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation) was the oversite of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe.  The group focused on the interdependence of economies.  Canada and the United States joined in 1960 and the OECD was officially created.  Japan joined in 1964, later joined by Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, South Africa, and Indonesia.  The 39 member countries currently account for 80% of the world’s trade and investments.

How Does America Compare to Other Developed Nations?

According to Philip Alston’s report

• The U.S. is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than the next 7 nations combined.
• We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than the average of OECD countries. Yet, on the average, there are fewer doctors and hospital beds in the United States, compared to the other 39 prosperous nations.
• The mortality rate for infants is the highest in the developed world.
• On the average, we have shorter and less healthy lives than citizens of other developed countries.
• On the average, we have the highest obesity rate in the developed world
• The inequality between rich and poor is higher than that of our European counterparts.
• Our nation has an estimated 12 million people living with a neglected parasitic infection.
• We rank 36^th out of 39 in access to clean water and proper sanitation
• We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The rate is five times that of the average among OECD nations.
• Our youth poverty rate is the highest of the OECD nations. Twenty five percent of our youth are living in poverty, compared to 14% on average.
• Of the top ten wealthiest nations, we rank number 10 in wealth inequality, safety net protections, poverty and economic mobility. Of the OECD nations, we rank 35 out of 37.

Economic Policy and Poverty

While the present report from the United Nations is shocking, from an historical perspective, this isn’t the first time that the United States has seen disparity between the haves and have nots.  Even our founding fathers struggled with how to establish a system where the moneyed interests wouldn’t dominate policy.  Over the years, the influence of money has ebbed and flowed.  In recent history, it took Theodore Roosevelt to stand up to the big monopolies and bring balance to the economy.
And again, following the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt attacked the problems associated with poverty brought on by the gap between the rich and poor.  Following WW II, it appeared that nothing could stand in the way of American progress.  The working person earned a good wage and had a reasonable standard of living.  Many were living the American Dream.

But, by the 1990s the American Dream seemed to become more elusive.  It soon became a major topic in political discussions.    Working class wages seemed to stagnate, small rural communities were struggling, and the two income household became a necessity.  The blue collar jobs of major manufacturing were being replaced with growing automation.  While the corporate and stock holder incomes continued to climb, working family income was stagnating.  The corporate focus was on making money.  Good returns on investments didn’t square with increased salary and benefits for working families.

The irony was that the average American didn’t see big business as the problem.  Instead, they thought that It was big government and its entitlement programs.  Taxes were the problem.  Government was taking the hard earned dollar and giving it to the “lazy” poor and illegal immigrants. While many people blamed the government, they chose to avoid engagement – i.e., not voting.  By the mid-80s some called the non-voter the fastest growing party in America. (Burnham, 1982)

While the non-voters complained, the Republican Party focused on “open” Capitalism – free markets, and aggressive accumulation of wealth. Under Ronald Reagan, it was believed that wealth would “trickle down” to the working classes and improve their standard of living.  Thus they falsely believed the American Dream was alive.  The Democrats, also Capitalists, supported these same general economic principles. However, they also considered the Populist reaction to huge corporate profits and a growing gap between the corporate hierarchy and working persons.  The Democrats, traditionally liberal in their social thinking, chose to focus on moving the excess profits to the people. They emphasized the need to increase taxes on the wealthy for the common good of the country.

By the end of the 20^th Century, control of the political machinery was moving back toward the conservative “open” Capitalism.  The final blow came in 2010, in the Citizen’s United case, when the Supreme Court decided that corporations were in fact citizens and could contribute to political action committees (PACs).  Citizens United created a political environment where the wealthy now have undue influence over our elected officials. Tthe truth is that politics has always been influenced by money in one way or another, but not to this extent!  Our current President is a major player in the economic/political struggle in the 21^st Century.  His campaign focused on improving the economic status of the working person through increased support for “open” Capitalism.  The irony is that the working class which wanted more opportunity to build the American Dream, again bought into the “trickle down” economic argument. .  If unleashed Capitalism is the answer, they are for it.

The problem with this type of thinking is that “trickle down” economics hasn’t worked.  The current low unemployment figures and amazing growth in corporate investments does nothing to protect the working poor or the unemployed  The question might be “Who cares,” as long as the middle class is able to afford a decent standard of living.  We should all care if we believe that America was founded on the concept of the “common good.”

According to a 2016 study by Bankrate.com, 63% of Americans don’t have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency.  The Pew Charitable Trusts also reports that 1/3 of American families have no savings. Few have any type of plan for retirement.  The wonderful benefit programs for the working class have either disappeared or been dramatically modified so that the worker is paying a large portion of the costs.  Along with the changes by corporate America, the Trump administration is working to reduce government “entitlement” programs.  Food stamps, medical care, housing, education and support for those who are not working are being reduced or eliminated.  While I support the idea of workfare, I also realize that there are some who cannot work and need assistance. They should not be abandoned! According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 estimates, 3.1 million Americans (12.7%) live in poverty, and  eighteen million live in “deep poverty.” These are individuals who earn less than 50% of poverty level wages (Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 Census Bureau, September 2017).

The parallels between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Reagan’s “America is Back” are many.  The lessons of the 1980s under Reaganomics should not be forgotten.  The American people need to consider the current climate of economic inequity, and be actively involved in change.  Part of this effort needs to be getting rid of the “not voting party.”  Our founding fathers believed in the common good for all, not a social structure that would be controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy.

Thoughts from the Middle

The Constitution

Article II

Presidential Powers

By

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

According to the news during the last few days, the lawyers for the President seem to be saying that the Chief Executive has almost unlimited powers—pardoning, immunity from prosecution, control of our jurisprudence, etc.  They claim that he may even have the authority to pardon himself.  What does the Constitution actually say about Presidential power?

The Constitution

It is important to remember that the writers of the Constitution wanted balance among the three branches of government.  Balance meant that each area had certain responsibilities which included monitoring the other two branches.

Section 1 simply spells out the terms of office and the electoral process.  The language was changed by the 12^th Amendment which established our current electoral system.  This section also established the requirements for the Office.  Today, only a natural born citizen can be President.  He/she must be 35 years of age and have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.  This section also sets out the procedure for replacing the President should she/he be unable to complete the elected term.  The salary of the President is discussed.  In addition, it states that the President cannot receive any other Emolument. Finally, it sets out the Oath of Office.

Section 2 sets of the powers of the President.  (1) The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, including the Militia when called into actual service of the United States.  (2) The President may require each Executive Department Head to provide opinions on requested topics relating to their respective offices.  (3) The President may also grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except for Impeachment.  (4) The President also has the power to enter into treaties with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate.  (5) The President nominates ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, judges for the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States as established by law.  These appointments must be approved by the Senate.  The President also has the power to fill vacancies without the consent of Congress when they are not in session.  These appointments expire at the end of the Senate’s next session.

Section 3 provides that the President shall give the Congress information through a State of the Union message and recommend policy.  The President has the power to call Congress into session at extraordinary times and may adjourn them when he/she thinks proper.  The President will receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.  The President will also make sure that the Laws are faithfully executed.  Lastly, the President shall commission all Officers of the United States.

Section 4 provides for the removal of the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States through the Impeachment process for the following reasons:  treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Power from Executive Responsibilities

As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has broad powers that allow for the conduct of government business.  The President can issue rules, regulations and other orders (executive orders).  As a routine these orders do not require Congressional Approval, but are subject to Judicial Review.

The President has also been granted budget power by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  While the President prepares the budget, Congress must approve it.

The President also has the power to veto Congressional legislation.  All legislation must be signed by the President before it becomes law.

The President is also the leader of the Party and while not true power, the position holds great power over public opinion.

The President may also have Emergency Powers if granted by the Congress.

While Executive Privilege was not given to the President in the Constitution, President George Washington claimed the privilege during his presidency.  Washington created the precedent for executive privilege.    President Nixon claimed executive privilege during the Watergate scandal.  The Supreme Court did not agree with his claim, saying that the “fair administration of justice” outweighed the President’s interest.  The Supreme Court affirmed its position when President Bill Clinton attempted to use the privilege during the Lewinski affair.

Claims of Presidential Power by President Trump’s Administration

Although the powers given to the President are broad, they are also defined (as noted above) in our Constitution or through legislation passed over the years.  The various claims of power to fire Special Counsels do not seem to have much support in our Constitution.  While the President does have the power of appointment of cabinet positions, tradition does not support the President’s reach beyond the Agency Heads.  The President may order an agency head to terminate an employee.  However, the termination is completed by the agency head.

Can the President pardon himself?  I suppose in an absurd way he could pardon himself for criminal behavior, but he has no authority to pardon himself if he is impeached.

It appears that the current President has been “stretching” the limits of the Constitutional powers .  While other presidents have claimed greater powers (Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman) these men were presidents during times of great national and world conflicts.  This time of Trump’s presidency is not one of those times.