This is Trump's America

https://twitter.com/ThePerezHilton/status/1290396643389394945?s=20

Why exactly was this wall built? Not for the reason you might think.

When we went to Yellowstone in January 2019, the Visitor's Center was closed, the Park Rangers were gone. Government shutdown.

Remember? US government shutdown over border wall will last into 2019

Well, one could argue, if one is religious, that God has now rendered His opinion of The Wall.

I sense a pattern

Police: 'Umbrella Man' was a white supremacist trying to incite George Floyd rioting

A masked man who was seen in a viral video smashing the windows of a south Minneapolis auto parts store during the George Floyd protests, earning him the moniker “Umbrella Man,” is suspected to be a member of the Hell’s Angels biker gang seeking to incite racial tension in a demonstration that until then had been peaceful, police said....

Police have also connected the 32-year-old man to a widely-publicized incident in Stillwater late last month, in which a Muslim woman was confronted by a group of men wearing white supremacist garb...

A subsequent investigation revealed that the man was also an associate of the Aryan Cowboy Brotherhood, a small white supremacist prison and street gang based primarily in Minnesota and Kentucky. Several of its members were present at the Stillwater incident.

Given a choice between Fox and the police, which do Fox watchers choose to believe?

“Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials.

Protesters tore down police tape and pushed forward toward Richmond police headquarters, where they set a city dump truck on fire.

Six people were arrested. The mayor of Richmond thanked the Black Lives Matter protesters he said tried to stop the white supremacists from spearheading the violence.”

Police: Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter

Portland July 2020

Creating chaos

Philly police officer charged in alleged robbery, assault of gamblers

Philly police officer charged in alleged robbery, assault of gamblers

Do they know?

More made up stuff that Fox News passes on to their viewers as true. We have a hard time understanding how they can believe the things they do, but they build those beliefs from what they know, just like all people do.

It's just that what they know is carefully rationed and modified by the powers that be so the powers that be can continue to be...in power.

here's @seanhannity pushing the "nypd got poisoned" hoax hours after the nypd even admitted it never happened pic.twitter.com/vfyrTi9RhK

— jordan (@JordanUhl) June 16, 2020

Happy Obama Day

Actual photos from the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ("CHAZ") in Seattle:

Crowd listening to a speaker

But Fox News does not show its viewers real photos. Instead:

This one is a photoshopped mashup of several photos 
- none of them taken in CHAZ

This photo was not even taken in Seattle,
much less in CHAZ.

Whenever I ponder Fox News watchers, I find myself thinking (among other things), "Do they know?"

Do they know what the rest of the country - Americans who seek out a variety of news sources, sources that do not selectively edit or photoshop or just plain lie about what is being shown - do they know what most Americans know?

If they know, are they ok with what they are shown on Fox? It mystifies me. Being deliberately lied to, or being deliberately kept in the dark, is something that I simply can't tolerate.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/welcome-to-the-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-where-seattle-protesters-gather-without-police/

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/

The Stockdale Paradox

Adm James Stockdale returns home after eight years as a POW in Vietnam

The name refers to Admiral Jim Stockdale, who was the highest-ranking United States military office in the “Hanoi Hilton” prisoner-of-war camp during the height of the Vietnam War. 

Tortured over twenty times during his eight-year imprisonment from 1965 to 1973, Stockdale lived out the war without any prisoner’s rights, no set release date, and no certainty as to whether he would even survive to see his family again. He shouldered the burden of command, doing everything he could to create conditions that would increase the number of prisoners who would survive unbroken, while fighting an internal war against his captors and their attempts to use the prisoners for propaganda. At one point, he beat himself with a stool and cut himself with a razor, deliberately disfiguring himself, so that he could not be put on videotape as an example of a “well-treated prisoner.” 

He exchanged secret intelligence information with his wife through their letters, knowing that discovery would mean more torture and perhaps death. He instituted rules that would help people to deal with torture (no one can resist torture indefinitely, so he created a step-wise system–-after x minutes, you can say certain things–-that gave the men milestones to survive toward). 

He instituted an elaborate internal communications system to reduce the sense of isolation that their captors tried to create, which used a five-by-five matrix of tap codes for alpha characters. (Tap-tap equals the letter a, tap-pause-tap-tap equals the letter b, tap-tap-pause-tap equals the letter f, and so forth, for twenty-five letters, c doubling in for k.) At one point, during an imposed silence, the prisoners mopped and swept the central yard using the code, swish-swashing out “We love you” to Stockdale, on the third anniversary of his being shot down. 

After his release, Stockdale became the first three-star officer in the history of the navy to wear both aviator wings and the Congressional Medal of Honor.

How on earth did he deal with it when he was actually there and did not know the end of the story?”

“I never lost faith in the end of the story,” he said, when I asked him. “I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which in retrospect, I would not trade.”

Finally I asked, “Who didn’t make it out?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” he said. “The optimists.”

“The optimists? I don’t understand,” I said, now completely confused given what he’d said earlier.

“The optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart. 

This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end–-which you can never afford to lose–-with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

Jim Collins, from his book, “Good to Great”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-stockdale-paradox_b_5897ca82e4b02bbb1816bc38

The police we have are not protecting us. We need a new kind of public safety.

How does this keep a community safe? There's no evidence that this young woman had any marijuana at all. The police claim they found "0.02 ounces of marijuana" which is literally the weight of half a paper clip.

But what if she had had, say, an Altoids box with a little weed in it, as is pretty common? Hell, what if she had had a shoebox full? Marijuana is less harmful than beer. Seriously.

So how does this appalling violation of a woman's body - a woman who has done nothing harmful or dangerous - keep a community safe?

Shouldn't these cops have been pursuing actual criminals and arresting them?

This is from 2017, but I never forgot reading about it.

Police depts do not keep their communities safe. Actual criminals are unmolested by "law enforcement" (sic). But they do this. With impunity.https://t.co/iNxTPN6PHe

— Janet Strange (@🏠) - RemoveTrumpNow - (@jstrange1925) June 12, 2020

Karen

Mad dogging?

 Apparently, it is a crime requiring arrest and being taken to jail to call a police officer a "retard."

Man being arrested for “Mad Dogging” an officer! This needs to STOP ✋ pic.twitter.com/okGUoeJbyY

— Moni1440 (@monilopez827) June 6, 2020

Note that protesting outdoors (and even better when wearing a mask) is considered a fairly low risk activity in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, but one of the most dangerous places to be is indoors in a crowd of people. And jails and prisons are among the most dangerous places as far as coronavirus transmission.

This cop is insulted, so he is going to use the power and force we give to law enforcement with the intention that they will "serve and protect" us to lock this man up and put him at risk of a potentially lethal disease.

https://twitter.com/monilopez827/status/1269304782902132741?s=20

Tony Timpa 2016

Timpa wailed and pleaded for help more than 30 times as officers pinned his shoulders, knees and neck to the ground in 2016.

'You're gonna kill me!': Dallas police body cam footage reveals the final minutes of Tony Timpa's life

Presidents speak on pandemic preparedness

From C-SPAN (2005)

President George W Bush speech: National Strategy for Pandemic Preparedness


Trump's public remarks about COVID-19

"I closed the borders"

I just need a place to put this.

How we see the world is shaped by what is shown to us . . .

April 12, 2020

In the UK,

Today's death toll: 917
Total UK so far: 9875

Some in the UK were shown this:

Some in the UK were shown this:

The Red Dawn emails

Link to the story:
The Red Dawn Emails

Link to the emails

Love her

https://twitter.com/WarrenforMI/status/1248128308551782401?s=20

Double standard: The national anthem

I often hear Democrats accusing Republicans of "hypocrisy." But hypocrisy is telling someone to do one thing and then doing something else yourself. What we usually see is a double standard. Different standards for Republicans and Democrats.

Case in point:

When I was growing up, I was taught to put my hand on my heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, but to stand respectfully for the national anthem. I don't know if I was taught correctly, but I imagine what I was taught was pretty common.

Anyway, when this happened in Iowa, Republican's totally lost their shit.

This was typical:

Barack Hussein Obama’s photo (that’s his real name). The article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE. How in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?

(Note: The national anthem was playing when this picture was taken, no one was reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.)

Anyway, President Obama standing respectfully during the playing of the national anthem was OH MY GOD the most awful, unforgivable thing any President has ever done.

On the other hand, this is perfectly OK:

As others stand at attention for anthem, Trump fidgets, points, pretend-conducts the band

tw-align-center>

Arrogance or dementia?

pic.twitter.com/gl76oTR9cE

— Chris Andersen (@ChrisAndersen) February 4, 2020

And there you have it. A classic case of a double standard.

Land mines

General Barry McCaffrey received three Purple Heart medals for injuries sustained during his service in the Vietnam War, two Silver Stars, and two Distinguished Service Crosses — the second-highest U.S. Army award for valor. He was inducted into U.S. Army Ranger Hall of Fame at U.S. Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning in 2007.

Why? Because it was President Obama who limited land mine use and brought the U.S. in line with the Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention, under which 164 countries have banned their use.

One of Trump's greatest ambitions in life is to destroy all of Obama's accomplishments. His narcissism cannot tolerate the knowledge that he will never come close to being a president of Obama's stature. 

The cost to the innocent for his raging ego has no meaning for him, no reality. He literally has no conscience.

Why the land mine, a persistent killer of civilians, is coming back under Trump

"In 2018, nearly 20 civilians were killed or injured every day by land mines and other unexploded ordnance remnants, such as cluster munitions, according to the International Coalition to Ban Landmines. That is almost certainly a conservative number. Children represented 40 percent of the casualties, the group reported."

Cambodia still has large numbers of mines from the spillover of the Vietnam War into Cambodia. A veteran replied to General McCaffery:

"In Vietnam alone, leftover land mines and other explosives dropped by the United States have killed 40,000 people since the end of the war, and it may take 300 years for all remaining munitions to be cleared. In other words, the last Vietnamese person to be killed by an unexploded U.S. munition probably hasn’t even been born."

But, well, dead children, children missing limbs, not important. The important thing is to piss off Obama, yes?

Do they know? Just today I read Joe Walsh (Republican running against Trump for the nomination in 2020 election) describe going to a Trump rally and talking to some of the people waiting for the rally to start.

"I asked about 40 folks a very simple question: Has Donald Trump ever lied to the American people? Every single person said “No.” No, Trump has never lied. A few people told me that Trump, unlike Obama, has never golfed. Nobody in line knew that Trump was increasing the debt way faster than Obama.Nobody knew that under Trump our deficit was now greater than $1 trillion. Almost everyone thought that China was paying for Trump’s tariffs."

Yesterday, I read the report of another person who had gone to a rally and had a similar experience. No one he talked to knew that Trump's 2020 budget includes drastic cuts to Medicare and they were startled and distressed about that.

I have no idea what they know about land mines. I'm willing to guess that they are not being told that they have no real military value, that actual military experts like General McCaffrey want nothing to do with them, that what they do, mainly, is kill and maim children for decades to come.

Do they know?

In 2004 during the Democratic Convention, I found myself at the home of a diehard FoxNews watcher. There was no possibility of watching the convention on another channel.

I really wanted to see the speakers, to follow what the Democratic party was presenting to the country in what seemed to me to be a critical election. The war, the war, the war. That was my primary reason for becoming active in the election - registering voters, going door to door, stuffing envelopes (literally), making calls, whatever I, a total novice at political engagement could find to do. The Iraq war, in my mind was a disaster. Thousands of American members of our military were dying, thousands more coming home with missing limbs, traumatic brain injuries, PTSD.

Someone I knew was a member of the National Guard and was deployed as a medic. Three times the vehicle he was riding in was blown up by an IED, all three times there were severe injuries, in one attack, a soldier in the vehicle was killed.

National Guard: Service in the War on Terror

Meanwhile, my friend's wife struggled at home trying to keep their four children on track, to deal with their worries and nightmares about whether they would see their father again or if he too would be killed. She found taking care of everything that goes into daily life in a family of four children aged five to fourteen by herself was a lot harder than she thought it was going to be. "I'll never again complain that he's not doing enough to help," she told me. "I realize every day how much he was contributing, now that he's not here."

When he came home, it was a struggle for everyone. He spent hours every day jogging. Friends remarked that he seemed to show little emotion, that he was changed from the outgoing, friendly person they had always known. He was distant. The children, who had always impressed me as some to the nicest, most interesting, and most well-behaved children I had ever known, started struggling.

After he had been home for about six months, his wife finally managed to to convince him to go to Ft Hood to be evaluated for PTSD. He had PTSD. Treatment helped.

But it would always be there. He had been changed. His children and his wife had a hole in their lives - the time in their lives when he should have been home, at the supper table, goofing around with the kids, sleeping next to his wife at night.

And for what? Because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy? Seriously? Even George Bush said Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, seemed insulted when a reporter asked a question that implied that Bush had said so at some point. Iraq was the only country in the Middle East where Al Qaida was not active - Saddam and Bin Laden were archenemies. Bin Laden thought Saddam was a heretic who had betrayed Islam, Saddam thought Bin Laden was a religious fanatic who posed a threat to his dictatorship.

So why? Why did my friend and his family and thousands of American service people pay the price they paid? For what? I swear, I still have not heard a good answer to that.

And what about the Iraqi people. Millions of people who simply got up every morning, got their kids ready for school, went to work, came home and cooked supper . . . just like people all over the world, but trying to do it while dealing with shortages and poverty caused by sanctions, with the daily anxiety that must be a fact of life when living under a dictatorship, and then, suddenly bombs are falling all around them, on their homes, on their children.

Excerpts from Iraq, the Human Cost

• The Iraq Ministry of Health at the same time as the second Hopkins study, found 400,000 excess deaths, 151,000 by violence.

• The number of displaced persons, both internal (within Iraq) and external (refugees, mainly in Jordan and Syria) ranged from estimates of 3.5 million to 5 million or more, which were directly attributable to the war. According UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, the total number of internally displaced equals more than 1.3 million, and the number of refugees exceeds 1.4 million. 

• Health-related impacts on children in Iraq, from the Brussels Tribunal and Global Research, Canada, describes the broad effects on children, including birth defects, cancer, inadequate nutrition . . .

• "Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold."

And for what? For what? Why?

How could any of us sit idly by and do nothing to stop this insane destruction? The destruction of bodies, of minds, of families, of our own military and of ordinary people in Iraq? 

I wanted to hear how the Democrats were going to stop this insanity. How were they making the case to the country, to the voters, that the insanity must stop?

But where I was, I couldn't see any of that. The speakers were tiny and far away in the background. You could see someone was speaking, but there was no audio of what they were saying. In the foreground was Bill O'Reilly and a couple of others like he him he was talking to, and all they talked about was that Teresa Heinz Kerry had said, "Shove it" to a reporter before the convention began. 

Here's what they were talking about:

 Cable news networks obsess over Teresa Heinz Kerry comment

On July 26, the cable news networks devoted extensive air time to Teresa Heinz Kerry's exchange with an employee of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a conservative daily newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife (known as the “Funding Father of the Right” ), who paid for the controversial anti-Clinton Arkansas Project.

That's all FoxNews viewers could see or hear about the Democratic Convention.

This is what they didn't hear: From the LA Times

“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going,” Obama said. “And to never -- ever -- go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace and earn the respect of the world.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of the administration’s most vociferous critics, called the war “misguided,” and said that “instead of making America more secure,” the administration’s politics “have made us less so.”

And so, as Trump's trial in the Senate is now underway, I listened to FoxNews in the midst of it and I heard nothing about what happened in Ukraine. Nothing about the testimony of the members of our Foreign Service, of our State Department.

Only jokes and ridicule of Nancy Pelosi's and Adam Schiff's appearance and mannerisms. Over and over again, "ridiculous witch hunt," "Trump did nothing wrong," "Democrats just hate him because liberals are haters, that's the main thing that motivates them, that's all they've got, hatred. Hatred of America and everything it stands for." And on and on. Just that.

So when I see

I think, well of course not. Everything that the rest of us - those who learn about what is happening in the world from a variety of sources, not just FoxNews - know about this whole sordid story, Republicans, including Republican Senators apparently, don't know anything about it. 

We read the news articles, watched or listened to the testimony . . . they didn't.

As always, it's critically important to FoxNews that their viewers don't see for themselves and make up their on minds. They must only know what FoxNews tells them, and that is going to be very little.

Fox News Really Doesn’t Want You to Tune Into Trump’s Impeachment Trial

“It was unbelievably boring. I don’t know how people can follow it.”

That same strategy appears to be playing out on Fox News, which went to great lengths to convince viewers that the trial wasn't worth their attention. 

"Unbelievably boring" is how Fox & Friends Steve Doocy described the first day. "we watched it so you don't have to watch the entire thing," Pete Hegseth told viewers. 

As warranted, we will dip in and out, but we're not going to torture you," Hannity said. He then paused to highlight Trump's lawyers, whose performances Hannity praised ad "excellent."

So as I watch the Senate trial and I hear Republicans still saying this is just a witch hunt, that Trump did nothing wrong, and I think, how on earth can they say that? Don't they know what he did?

And the answer is . . .

No. They don't.

Impeachment Manager Hakeem Jeffries:



And now you know.

What did the founders mean by "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

The Federalist Papers : No. 65   HAMILTON

Friday, March 7, 1788 The Powers of the Senate Continued

To the People of the State of New York: 

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate. 

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. 

The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. 

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny. 

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it. 

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded? 

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS? 

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. 

The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons. 

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? 

Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt? 

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was perhaps the prudent mean. I forbear to remark upon the additional pretext for clamor against the judiciary, which so considerable an augmentation of its authority would have afforded. 

Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men. 

But though one or the other of the substitutes which have been examined, or some other that might be devised, should be thought preferable to the plan in this respect, reported by the convention, it will not follow that the Constitution ought for this reason to be rejected. If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert. Where is the standard of perfection to be found? Who will undertake to unite the discordant opinions of a whole commuity, in the same judgment of it; and to prevail upon one conceited projector to renounce his INFALLIBLE criterion for the FALLIBLE criterion of his more CONCEITED NEIGHBOR? To answer the purpose of the adversaries of the Constitution, they ought to prove, not merely that particular provisions in it are not the best which might have been imagined, but that the plan upon the whole is bad and pernicious. 

PUBLIUS. 

Avoiding GMOs isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral.

Avoiding GMOs isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral.