Time Person of the Year: Greta Thunberg

I do not have a problem with anyone passionate over any cause. Greta is a 15 year old passionate about climate change and going to protests over that cause. I only ask that folks live as they preach and as far a I know Greta does. Greta no longer goes to school since climate change is her life mission and has already testified before Congress. Again, I have no issue with this, I wish the best for Greta and her family.

All that said, if Time can not do any better than Greta for person of the year, even for climate change matters, that is a shame. While the ability to protest (peacefully) is okay, but protesters are a dime a dozen. However, finding a person who can actually innovate and find solutions to problems facing America is really rare. What is going to solve climate change problems are not protests, but scientists. Who is going to invent that smaller but more efficient battery for electric cars or the next energy fuel that is clean, cheap, and abundant? In my view, Greta would be better off staying in school to learn to be a problem solver instead of a problem creator. I have never seen a protest solve any problem and in most cases it only angers persons with other views. Unfortunately, this is what college students learn: to pick a cause and protest for it. Instead, what college students should be learning is to pick a cause and then how to innovate for it. Griping to automakers to pressure them to make a better fuel efficient car does very little. In fact, the pressure may force them to cut back on safety to meet fuel efficiency causing thousands to die. I have always lived by the mantra that it is alright to complain about a problem but only if you can offer some solutions to the problem.

There is absolutely nothing unique about Greta. Lots of young people protest and lots of people protest over climate change. If Time wants to give person of the Year to some liberal cause that is fine and it is there prerogative, but they should find a productive problem solver and not persons who a dime a dozen that merely create more problems.

Dems Take Victory Lap over USMC Trade Deal

The USMC is the United States - Mexico - Canada trade deal that Trump put together to replace NAFTA over a year ago. I do not believe that the Dems would have passed the legislation, but they were under much pressure facing an unpopular impeachment process in key battleground states. Of course, the Dems do not want to give the president any kind of a win so they spun the USMC deal as one they put together because the plan they got from the White House was unacceptable and infinitely inferior to their plan. That said, I have no doubt that the Dems made a few important improvements to the White House proposal, but to downplay it into a partisan effort truly shows their intentions. I mean, isn't that the job of Congress - to write bills and make them better. It is unbecoming of anyone to brag about doing their job. Even if the Dems completely rewrote the entire USMC and did not take anything the White House proposed, then the White House still deserves the most credit. Let me explain.

The Dems claim that the USMC is much better than NAFTA. If that is true, and they knew the American public was not getting the best deal in NAFTA, then why did they wait until the President made a new deal for them to get on board? Where the Dems getting a quid pro quo from the other governments to stay in the bad deal that hurt some American citizens? What reason do the Dems have to keep a trade plan that violates the rights of American citizens (violating their right to work a lawful job) when they knew it was a bad plan? If it were not for the White House, it would be business as usual.

Dems can spin it all they want, if it were not for the White House proposing a better deal than NAFTA, NAFTA would still exist. I do not understand why both sides cannot agree it was bipartisan and move on. Nancy Pelosi was offended when asked if she hated Trump. Well, this is more evidence that Nancy and Dems hate Trump and will do anything to impeach him.

What are the Odds the FBI had no Political Bias Against Trump?

I am a math guy and always like to represent issues with numbers when I can. After reading several summaries of the Horowitz findings, I am able to place the odds the FBI had no political bias against Trump at one in 131,072! In other words, a person is 13 times more likely to get ALS than the FBI behaved in good faith against Trump.

Let me explain why such a precise number. All the reports made the same claims: 1. There was no political bias against Trump but 2. there were 17 errors or mistakes made while processing the FISA warrants against members of the Trump administration. Obviously, if there was no political bias, the oversights made in the FISA applications must have errors or mistakes. After all, if there was political bias than the oversights in judgment would have been called malfeasance, corruption, intentional, criminal, or some other "bad" term. A mistake or error means it was not criminal or intentional. But let's think about that. There were 17 errors or misjudgments and every single one of them went against the Trump administration. One would think if these were unintentional errors, some would go against the Trump administration, but some would go in favor of the Trump administration. In this case, all errors worked against Trump and the chances of that happening is 2 to the 17 power or one in 131,072.

This outcome is not surprising considering the animus that has surrounded Trump since his election and all the efforts that continue to get him impeached. Sure, Trump is an jerk, but the behavior of the FBI and Democrats trying to impeach him are criminal and against everything the Constitution stands for: to treat everyone equally with the same rights. I would take a jerk over anyone violating the rights of another citizen any day of the week. After all, violating the rights of another citizen is behavior that is no different than those who favored slavery. United States history is loaded with rights violations and you should read my book Defending Freedom of Contract to learn the facts and truth.

If Dems win in 2020 Pam Karlan is the next Supreme Court Justice

I have made it abundantly clear, I do not like Donald Trump. That said, there is no such thing as a moderate or even liberal presidential candidate making 2020 a choice between an total jerk with some very questionable policies and a socialist. The former is the lesser of two evils. However, my decision to vote for Trump over any of the Dems in 2020 is the same reason as in 2016: The Supreme Court. I believe Gorsuch is a solid selection and I am a bit iffy on Kavanaugh (not for the same reason as Dems) but they are better than the liberal choices.

Nadler's impeachment hearings earlier this month was a job interview for the next liberal Supreme Court justice between Pam Karlan, Noah Feldman, and Michael Gerhardt. Pam Karlan was the hands down winner because she was the most extreme and liberals would want want a woman to replace Ginsberg. Besides, Karlan had been considered for the high court by the Obama administration.

Karlan's views should scare any independent or conservative to death. She made it completely obvious her willingness to impeach Trump was strictly partisan which included classless outbursts and jokes of children and adversaries.

Karlan's views are dangerous and they are the same views that will lead to one group of people violating the rights of other citizens. As I mentioned in my previous blog post, the true meaning of the Constitution is to protect the undisputed natural law fundamental rights of all citizens equally. Karlan will undoubtedly protect some citizens at the expense of others to promote her social justice and liberal beliefs. As I explain in my book, Defending Freedom of Contract, this type of thought process is no different than the thought process that led the Court to uphold slavery, sterilization, internment of a race, deny legal contracts, violate the rights of workers and small businesses, deny free speech, deny fundamental rights such as property, deny the rights of the unborn but protect the rights of animals and nature over citizens rights, and so forth and so on. Karlan will make interpreting the law about opinions, bias, theories, doctrines, and balancing tests so some can benefit at the expense of others instead treating everyone the same. Remember, balancing tests, opinions, bias, theories, and doctrines are unnecessary if everyone receives the exact same treatment. The law is easy when it is applied fairly, it is vast and complex when it is applied according to ones political ideology. Sure, conservatives are guilty of the same thing, but not to extend as liberals. Karlan's insane views at the hearing certainly showed she is biased and has lots of opinions. If she would convict Trump on no factual evidence and hearsay then there is not a single person in the United States safe from being locked up based on her opinions and biases if she does not like you and what you stand for. Buyer beware.

Please read my book. It is fact based and discusses hundreds of cases, laws, theories, and doctrines that circumvent the true meaning of the Constitution.

The True Meaning of the Constitution: Protect the Fundamental Rights of Everyone Equally (Even Trump)

We have heard everyone declare that it is their duty to uphold the Constitution to impeach Trump. If you have read my book (Defending Freedom of Contract) I opine the true meaning of the Constitution is to protect the rights of every American citizen equally. That sounds simple, but this concept has been violated time and time again in American history. In particular, the Constitution protects the unalienable natural law fundamental rights which are not disputed by the public. Said differently, to protect those rights that everyone is in 100% agreement such as the right to vote, to free speech, to work a lawful profession, to obtain knowledge, to play, to family, to friends (associations), to self-defense, to partake in contracts, to own property, to marriage, and to justice to name a few important natural law fundamental rights protected by the Ninth Amendment or the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one would dispute these rights.

The important right I mention above is the right to justice. There are an abundance of clauses in the bill of rights to protect the right of justice such as the right to a jury trial, the right to a speedy trail, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to face your accuser or witnesses, the right to counsel, the right to obtain witnesses on their behalf, no excessive bail, the right to impartial jury, double jeopardy, and a few others. These clauses make up the right to justice and to protect the accused so they are innocent until proven guilty. Said differently, everyone is allowed due process of the law and there is no exception.

If I look at what is going on in the house impeachment hearings, if I see any violation to upholding the constitution it is the Democrats denying the President's natural law fundamental right to justice. Many of the above provisions of the constitution have been violated. There is no bigger crime than not upholding the constitution and violating the right of others. So, should those people not upholding the Constitution also be held accountable and also impeached?

This is the problem with ALL Americans, they truly do not know the Constitution, nor do they understand what it means to uphold the Constitution and this includes those naive constitutional scholars that testified before Congress in the impeachment hearings. Although Turley worried about the process being unfair mainly due to the speed and lack of evidence, he never brought up any concern about violating the rights of the president.

Even if Trump committed a crime and is guilty, he has rights that cannot be denied. If we have a Constitutional crisis it is being created by Democrats, not Trump.

Again, I do not like Trump. I do not like most of his policies, but they are better than what the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates offer. I would rather have Pence as president, but that does not mean I violate the rights of a person to get my way. Things like this have happened throughout U.S. history and I urge you to read my book to understand this principal because it goes further than slavery (Dred Scott).

This past week Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden were asked tough questions (and some thought even unfair). They responded in a defensive and angry fashion. Now, how would Nancy and Joe act if they were challenged with tough and sometimes unfair questions and accusations everyday? Would they be any different than how Trump behaves? Probably not. Everyone has a breaking point. For Nancy and Joe it was one question, but there rights have not been violated but Trump's rights have been violated, by Nancy Pelosi. Thus, asking Nancy if she "hates Trump" is a fair question for anyone who violates the rights of another. They must hate to commit a crime against them.

Why we Live in a Republic and NOT a Democracy

The impeachment shenanigans are precisely why we live in Republic and NOT a Democracy. If my book "Defending Freedom of Contract" were published next year I would have used this charade as an example of the republic protections of the constitution to prevent a majority of imposing its will on a minority. These were the fears of James Madison as he clearly articulated in Federalist Paper 10.

Let me explain that I do not like Trump. He is a narcissistic a&%hole. I would enjoy having Pence being the President. But that does not matter. I listened to 4 Constitutional Lawyers yesterday explain the impeachment clause. Three thought that impeaching a president based on limited facts in a partisan way was okay. They felt impeachment should be political and easy to accomplish. In fact, I believe no future president is safe from impeachment using the standard raised by those three Con Lawyers. One Con Lawyer rightfully thought the Dems should proceed and try to get more evidence and was fearful of the the precedent the current impeachment would set. What I did not hear from these Lawyers is that the founders placed many republic protections to prevent against a coup d'etat (or to protect against Madison's majority faction fears in FP 10). Even if the house votes to impeach, there must be a Senate trial with the chief justice presiding and there must be two-thirds majority. For this reason, the founders did not want to make it easy to impeach a president over a policy disagreements or minor offenses. In fact, president Andrew Johnson, could not be removed from office even though he was a Democratic president with a Republican dominated legislature residing over an angry and bitter North following the assassination of Lincoln and the end of bloody Civil War. Several Republican Senators, including Lyman Turnbull saw the dangers of the precedent they were setting. Emotions should not be part of impeachment, but unfortunately that is what is happening. Turnbull is mentioned in my book for his heroic fight for civil rights.

I am sick of hearing people proclaim that they want to protect our democracy. Because that is precisely what they are doing. They protecting a democracy at the expense of a republic and that is wrong. If impeachment becomes a democratic issue, as the Left would like, then it would take only 51 votes to convict an impeached president. The progressive movement has been a silent coup d'etat moving the country from a republic to a democracy (i.e. the trampling of federalism and State rights) and now the 2020 Dem candidates want to move this country towards a socialist state. This is not upholding the constitution, it is violating the basic republic protections in the constitution. For instance, the Left talking about eliminating the protections of the electoral college is one example of violating our Constitutional republic protections (Read my book to explain why we have the Electoral College and how our vote counts more, not less in such a system).