Archive for the ‘THOUGHTS’ Category


Ever since the last National Election I have refrained from using this Blog as a vehicle to vent any frustrations that may arise within me in the context of whatever political discussions I may be having at that time. I am like a pressure vessel that is slowly being heated to an extent that is is in danger of exploding. But like any pressure vessel with a safety valve, one expects the safety valve to lift at a pressure lower than the bursting pressure of the vessel. Only an idiot would deliberately tie the safety valve down such that it cannot lift and perform its vital function. By not responding to the almost daily insults to my presumed intelligence I have become like the pressure vessel with the tied down safety valve. Either I start responding to these perceived insults (untie the safety valve) or suffer the consequences (the vessel will burst). I offer the following as an attempt to untie the safety valve.

I have been given a list of what I assume are political talking points promulgated by some ‘wise person’ with a megaphone and a political agenda. My first reaction upon reading the list was one of dismissal. Upon a second thought I decided to describe how I think my discussion of the contents of the list might unfold.

Such a discussion would likely start with an expression of complete faith in the veracity, intellectual honesty, and competence of the author of the list the bearer of the list. Next would follow an expression of complete faith in the obvious good intentions of the author of the list. Any expressions to the contrary by me will be met with indignant statements designed to leave the impression that the person offering the contrary view is somehow an accollite of a conspiracy theory which is never explained except as being composed of “them”. At this point in the discussion I probably would be trying to not not let my rising gorge become a problem for me. I expect I would emerge as a loser in that effort and would attempt end the discussion sooner rather than later. I expect that both parties to the discussion will leave the scene with a feeling frustration at not being able to sway the others opinions.

One of the advantages of a discussion of the list using the written word is that one can set forth your reasoned responses without any distractions by the other party and thus minimize the necessity for verbal interaction. I will begin by picking one of the statements from the list and analyze it as an example of how I might proceed. I do not intent to analyze the entire ‘list’. My pick is: “. It was cool for Joe Biden to blackmail the President of Ukraine, but it is an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquires about it.” It is obvious that the author of the list wants the reader to accept as fact the following: 1. Joe Biden blackmailed the President of the Ukraine. 2. Donald Trump was impeached for asking a question of the President of the Ukraine. Neither is factually correct.

Donald trump was not impeached for asking a question of the President of the Ukraine; he was impeached because sufficient evidence that he violated the Constitution of the United States prohibition against committing “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The power to define “high crimes and misdemeanors’ is vested solely in the House of Representatives. He was impeached specifically for using the office of the President to force the President of the Ukraine to conduct an investigation of Joe Biden and his son by illegally blocking foreign aid to Ukraine that had been authorized by the Congress of the United states. He was also impeached because sufficient evidence that that President obstructed the administration of Justice by use of the powers of the Presidency. It is wholly immaterial as to the perceived ‘coolness’ of any action of the president.

I conclude that statement no. 4 is without merit of any kind except as an example of the techniques used by unscrupulous purveyors of intellectual garbage. The remainder of the list in my opinion would suffer the same fate if examined using a similar approach as used to debunk no. 4. I do not intend to spend any more time on this ‘list’.

%d bloggers like this: