It will never wash off...Rule of Law versus Law

First this week there will be two blogs. One on the fiasco in the Senate right now and one humorous. This is the somber one, and by request.  I'll give you as much as I can without sharing my opinion, but as a Constitutional Conservative, I truly believe there's no wiggle room this time.... But let's go into this and let you decide. 

Today, Senator Alexander from Tennessee released a statement saying he believed Trump had broken the "rule of law", believes the House Committee proved its case, but that it's not impeachable or reason to remove from office.  Is that a true statement?  For that, we will need to break it down. 

First, as a Senator, he can form a decision to whether the House proved its case. He says they did.  One might then assume he would vote in favor of Impeachment. But in his "qualifying" what he thinks is "rule of law" he attempts to create wiggle room to agree the House is correct without taking action warranted if they are correct.  Confused?

Which brings us to "not" a reason to impeach.  The Constitution is usually pretty vague.  Lots of interpretations can be made, thus why our legal system costs a fortune.  However, the Constitution on this matter is really, unusually clear. Article II, Section IV is one sentence.  But not ambiguous like the First or Second Amendments.  It states:

"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."

Well, that says on Impeachment for... Bribery.  Seems fairly cut and dry. But believe it or not, here's where I have to dissect it more for everyone. 

"... and Conviction...". So, we have to go back to 1972.  In 1972, Nixon's legal team asserted that he could not be indicted (charged in a Federal or any state, county or city courts) while a sitting President.  How can you be convicted if you can't be indicted? Basically, this shreaded these two words.  You can't be convicted of selling meth if no court can indict you. They asserted "Executive Privilege" meant POTUS can't be indicted.  This, of course, makes it impossible to convict. There's never been a challenge in court to this assertion. 

There was a legal challenge in the court system by Nixon's team on Executive Privilege, but it only addressed that all documentation must be handed over to the House. In the United States versus Nixon, it was deemed "Executive Privilege" did not protect any President from handing over all documents and witnesses for Congressional review, including recordings. This is because the Constitution requires Congress to provide oversight on the Executive branch. As a result, the Watergate tapes were turned over and Nixon resigned.

Back to the current case,  the House's obstruction charge under "High Crimes" is clear then.  The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 all documents and tapes must be turned over.... Yet, Trump and his legal beagles haven't turned over anything.  Even the "transcript" wasn't an actual transcript, but rather a summary with excerpts.  Really pathetic when we consider the excerpts actually include the Bribery. (Yes, I did actually read it.)

So now, as Senator Alexander stated, the House proved its case.  There was Obstruction, aka. a High Crime, that totally ignored the Supreme Court of the United States ruling made in 1972.  Basically, in laymen's terms, Trump has ignored Congress and the Supreme Court, effectively shreading the "checks and balances" of the Constitution if the Senate fails to remove him. 

That doesn't even include the primary charge of Bribery.  There's not supposed to be anyone in office that bribes anyone.  Period. The Constitution uses the word.  And Trump literally admitted to this on both the White House lawn and interviews on camera, let alone the several times on his Twitter.  

None of which addresses what he wasn't charged with, Treason.  He attempted to Bribe a foreign country. The "foreign country" part is where we get to treason... Now, that is debatable on the Treason since he really wanted personal gain. Probably why the House committee decided to leave it out. Stick with what they could prove.  Bribery and the High Crime, since 1972, Obstruction.  

Finally, is "personal gain" a crime?  In terms of elections, yes. We have all kinds of laws, both Federal and State laws, about what you can and cannot do if you are a candidate.  Using taxpayer money for personal gain is also illegal, per 18 US Code 641 which makes it illegal for any personal gain at all using taxpayers' money.  Also something the House committee chose not to charge in the impeachment to remove Trump from office.  Sure some, maybe even a majority of them are guilty of misusing our money... But how many of them have blatantly bragged about it?  Let alone gotten away with it after bragging??  We wanted the "swamp" cleaned up?  This will be a green light they can do anything they want. Quite the opposite.  Cleaned up versus openly in your face are definitely not the same thing.

Yet somehow, we are in a dilemma. Alexander has admitted the House team "proved" their case, but he doesn't believe it is impeachable?  Yet, there's no wiggle room. Really none.  "Rule of Law" was established in 1972 on the Obstruction.  Trump ignored a Supreme Court ruling.  That's actually Rule of Law.  

The difference between Rule of Law and Law?  Appeals' courts rulings. Federal and State appeals courts right up to the highest Court of the USA ~ Supreme Court of the United States of America.  Once an appeal has been reviewed and "ruled" on, it becomes "Rule of Law".  SCOTUS ruled on what would be Obstruction and Nixon complied and resigned.  So Trump hasn't complied with the Rule of Law at all.  Yet, this is Senator Alexander's argument.... It's the circle jerk from hell. 

But there's a much big picture at stake.  Two things will be decided by the Senators' vote that aren't actually officially being voted on.  

One, the simpler problem, is the two party system is a failure? if Trump is acquitted, it is.  Senator Alexander's statement means Trump is guilty.  Failure to remove him from Office means the great Constitution's "checks and balances" has failed.  It's a piece of paper.  The United States is not about the higher ideals we all learn in school. They are just smoke and mirrors.

As if the first shouldn't cause enough pause, the second issue is all you need is to "own" the USA is the Senate and Presidency.  The Senate will have eliminated its ability to hold the President accountable. It will have made the House little more than a figurehead, because the charges were "proven".  The House was right and did the right thing.  This goes beyond parties. It must.  If it doesn't, there's no democracy. There's no republic.  Just who can spend the most money and win those two. 

Now, for those Trumpkins that have gotten all the way through this and think doesn't matter.... Remember sooner or later the Democrats will be in the same position Trump and his cronies are, only this will mean they "own" the Presidency and the Senate.  It will happen.  There will be no "checks and balances".  There will be a lot of backroom dealings with no one holding anyone accountable, because of all right here and right now.  

If the GOP votes against removing a man who openly admitted and even bragged initially about his "quid pro quo", there's no coming back.  The Constitution is worth less than toilet paper. Bribery.  There's no question it wasn't Bribery. There's no question the Constitution forbids it.  There's no question Trump committed Bribery.  He admitted it over and over.  What do you think the Constitution is?  Is it the Law of the Land? Or just a beautifully hand written piece of toilet paper made to fool the masses into thinking we have a clean ass??  The biggest illusion of all because none of this will ever be washed off.

Online Dating Profiles on a Sunday Night

First, let's start by saying all of these examples are from men's profiles.  I cannot speak to the women, although given the number of men with some serious issues, I'm absolutely positive there are equally bizarre women out there.  Some men even bitch, hell even I have, in their profile text about the weirdos. So I have some "proof" these examples probably could easily be from females. 

Very first one... Actually needs me to give a disclaimer....Since I've done this a couple times over the last decade, I can honestly say I've never seen anyone put pictures of a politician, unless they are the politician.  In fact, I can honestly never remember anyone ever coming up to me ever and saying "I'm a huge (insert name of politician) fan.  Can I buy you a drink?" I don't know why Trumpkins are so bizarre but way more than one include pictures of Trump, sometimes even trying to Photoshop him into one of their own photos.  So this first guy shown today?  Takes a picture of himself without his shirt on and photoshopped a really fat 73 year old orange man who hasn't seen his own penis in at least two decades, not even in a mirror, thinking that somehow ups his physical appeal. Nope can't make this shit up. Swipe left.  

Next...Several pictures of a guy with new shirts with the tags visible, upon a little closer review, taken in a dressing room.  Oh boy.  With greasy snagglepuss hair.  Left.

Duck dynasty beard claiming to be 43, looking like about 58-65 with a couple pics with his friends who also look around 60 give or take. Left.

Picture of a little girl.  Another pic of the little girl. And another.  That's it.  A 40 something guy or pedophile?? Really. Reported and swipe left.

Couple.  Dominant male, heavy set... Okay fat.  Chick with nose ring. The submissive.  She's better looking than he is but not by much.  No I'm not joking. You can't make this shit up.  Left.

Another 58-65 geezer trying to pass himself off as 43.  Is there some magic in the number 43?  Left.  Another. Left.  Another only he's claiming 45. Left....

Dirt bike helmet. Next pic? Duck dynasty beard that hasn't been properly washed in a year that looks like something is about to crawl out of it. Oooo, a picture of the trailer and trailer park he lives in.... Left.

Pic from really far away. Next on bike. Next of everything but a close up. No age.  Last pic close up of geezer chest. Nice. Not. Left.

Super, really super hairy chest from the top to below the belly button, just the chest, no face.  I know some women go for super hairy but ewww. And why in the hell is that your only pic?!? Probably a cheater. Definitely a Loser. Swipe left. 

Oh boy. "School of Hard Knocks". Code for guy who thinks he's smarter than he actually is. Yes, speaking from previous experience. Swipe left.

Sure there were actually more this evening, but the rest were just normal guys. I don't even think I saw a bot today.  Guess they're busy getting ready for election season.  

Time for a bit of honesty....

This blog started more than 11 years ago as a way to tell a couple friends who purchased dating memberships for me the stories their investments had created and to laugh at.  Mostly hilarious dating horror stories.  In fact, just about all of them.  The handful that went well, well, they simply weren't worthy of a sentence.  Who wants to read that?  Within a couple years, my readership had topped 600+ for some of the more ridiculous stories, and even the less hilarious stories were registering 200+ readers.  My friends shared with other friends and suddenly my dating was more entertaining than most sitcoms.  Unfortunately, the best have been deleted, as Google allows only so much space for free. 

Eventually though, having given up on those dating sites, the blog evolved into just random observations, then sometimes educational, fact checking...2015 was just trying to point out the obvious.  No one that has ever claimed bankruptcy is a financial genius.  No one.  We all know it.  Pointing it out should never have been necessary. But more often than not, it was still about my experiences. A pepper of my life with observations that might, maybe, help others.... Or at bare minimum have people laughing, or entertained, or even better, thinking.  

My interest in writing didn't stop although the blog seemed to whimper out, even with a sabbatical, I came back to over 100 readers and then within months I was back at over 200.  Then suddenly, it was recently pointed out that I had suddenly stopped again, only posting very rarely.  I thought about that conversation where I was asked a simple question. Why? 

Sure, I could tell you the staple answers.  Easy answers for an "easy" question.  Work, the job I actually get paid for. That wouldn't be honest.  I did get busy, but this has always been like a weekly therapy session for me than a chore.  Another easy answer would be that I got frustrated at the level of ignorance I was seeing on social media.  Anyone who barely knows me would know that was a lie.  Sure it was annoying, but I see annoyance, under educated misnomers via memes and repeated lies, as a challenge to the whole human race.  A challenge to be stepped up to, knocked back on its ass with education and facts, not a thing to cower from and allow George Orwell's 1984 to become the new Bible.  So... Why?

The simplest of all answers. My ex's wife was stalking it.  He told me bits and pieces from a blog and said he didn't read it... His wife does. Then, not only his wife.  I end up being told by a mutual friend, there's a couple of these women who stalk my blog for.... Who the hell knows.  Two women who married the same clown who tricked me into what can only be described as the worst rebound relationship in history have such menial lives that somehow, even though they never knew each other in person, literally like a thousand miles apart, would stalk a blog from a 3rd woman they only had in common was a man, not even my ex.  Nope, it's so ridiculous you just can't make that up.  I could elaborate the details of many of the acts of mental illness I've observed over the years with these 3, let alone my ex.  I could even try to explain it... Except only a really experienced, knowledgeable psychologist would be able to explain.  I have no idea.  But I didn't want to know.  Ever. At all.  Be honest, you read that and you are either laughing or saying "I wouldn't want to know if I was you either. Holy shit."  Even those two are probably trying to say to themselves, "she's not talking about me".

However, at the revelation, I did suddenly want some privacy.  I took to only writing on my FB and blocking both those women, the man the 3 of us had in common and my ex.  There.  Restored privacy. 

Okay, yes, an illusion. My favorite actually.  I like my privacy. People think I talk a lot, which I do.  I'm a terrific writer for that reason.  Depth and detail.  But most people never realize I don't tell them much about me. I'll make tiny comments here and there about who I am, but most of the time you know a whole lot about the people around me and nothing about me.  Refer to previous paragraph. I've told you more about them than I've let on about me.  Yours truly prefers to be a shrinking violet.  I know that sounds completely counter intuitive to anyone who thinks they know me.  I don't like a lot of attention.  I don't like the spotlight.  I really feel a bit uncomfortable if someone brags about me.  And, in spite of loving a good debate, I really can't stand to argue.

What? I think some people mix up the one thing that brings me out faster than a testarossa.  I don't like bullies and I'll stand up against a bully, particularly in defense of someone else.  But I find bullies exhausting and less then interesting. At a certain point, too predictable and boring. I enjoy a good conversation with someone who has facts and has given it some logical analysis.  Love those people.  But arguing just for arguing's sake?  Nope. I'm going to go sit in my corner, people watch and make personal notes on human behavior.  (I'm betting a couple of you are looking back and thinking "damn it, she did do that. A lot.")  

Bigger surprise? Anyone that knows me can tell you something that shocks just about anyone that thinks they know me. They often demand that I grow a pair and stand up for myself.  Odd?  Not if you know me.  The book's cover barely exposes the title page, let alone the chapters, perhaps volumes, that culminate into the story that's me.  

So maybe now on reflecting, every lesson, every moron I've had to put up with, was simply because I didn't ever "fight back".  I was under the delusion that play nice, or opossum, and eventually people, would go about their business and leave me alone.  Sigh.... And there's why the blog ended.  I wanted peace and quiet, and although I have no interaction with these crazy people, I didn't see why I would open them up to any of my thought processes.  

But alas, I did say I had been reflecting, and truth be told, I don't really care.  What little bits and pieces of me that I put here don't even scratch the surface of who I am.  Layers upon layers.  You can't be me.  I've raced cars because I had no sense and it was in the blood.  I jumped out of an airplane just to see what I would learn about myself (holy crap what I learned in just half a minute).  I raised 3 boys on my own, financially and emotionally, because I never asked for a single penny increase in child support over 18 years even though an increase was warranted both legally and morally... And I did that just because I'm stubborn and wanted some peace.  I made a really good living because I'm actually good at what I do, and that made it possible to never bother with increases in child support.  I have "loaned" people in need money and told them to pay it forward.   "Never loan anything you can't afford to give" as my grandfather used to say.  Add in, I was a child prodigy, spoke 3 languages fluently as a child, skipped two grades. Graduated from a top university without any help from my family... after basically telling them off and going to do it the hardest way I could choose--all on my own.  And still this just barely makes a tiny scratch of the surface of who I am. 

My advice ladies? Quit reading my blog.  I'm going to start writing again and frankly you will never measure up.  Spare yourselves, because yes, you must feel a need to measure up if you are stalking this blog all these years.  One of you has some serious issues.  Fourth "wife" getting in contact with first wife online (or vice versa) and becoming "best" friends while stalking second "wife".  Really don't care which of you nutjobs instigated the whole communique.  Did you two even meet in person after all those years when my son was in that wreck almost 2 years ago?  You were within an hour's drive... Seriously folks I'm not even making that up.  And yes ladies, the ones that know me enough to know I don't lie about anything, even they are thinking you are both totally looney. Hell if you read that like it wasn't about you two, you both would realize how nuts you both sound.

So sure, in my position, wouldn't most love a big bit of privacy?  Especially when someone told you about these nuts?  Hell, I'd think one someone was making it up if my ex hadn't confirmed it.  It was and still seems surreal.  But, seriously if you need me to talk about so you have something special in your lives?  Have at it.  I enjoy writing.  I have friends that enjoy reading it.  If it means you two are twisting in your own fumes because I still somehow after all these years grate your nerves?  Woohoo.  Bonus points for me.  My life right now is great.  

Mainly because I finally will stick up for myself when I feel I need to.  And thank you.  You two actually helped me realize that last piece I was missing.  Only two miserable idiots would still be worried about me.  Little old me.  And honestly, straight up honest and sticking up for myself, you don't hold a candle to me or there would never have been a need to stalk me in the first place, let alone form some weird twisted friendship online. There's a couple honest words that describe you both to a T.  Total wackos.  Have fun reading ladies because let's be honest. Neither of you are intelligent enough to move on or you would've way before I stopped my blog for a while.