Read the Transcript

Whoa! Have any of the Democrats read the transcript of President Trump’s call to the President of Ukraine? If you have not read it yet, do so. There is nothing left to discuss. (But I will for the sake of the record.) And ignore the scurrilous paraphrase that Chairman Schiff made. He could make a decent living writing sitcoms for CNBC. Except that his monologue went longer than the dialogue between the Presidents lasted. Maybe we should say, “An indecent living.”

At least two critical things pop out. Well, maybe three. First, the original query was about the European contribution to Ukraine. Nothing too intimidating there. President Trump wanted to encourage our NATO allies to pull their fair share of the weight of supporting this ally.

Then he segued into the internet server involved in the Russian allegations. President Trump asked if it belonged to Ukraine. President Z said that he was checking on that.

The third question was about the corruption in their country and the fact that one of their prosecutors was pulled off the case. (No mention of “you know who,” whom we now know was the instigator of that action, by his own confession.) President Zelenskyy lamented that the investigation had stalled and he was going to reinitiate it.

Then, President Trump mentioned “Biden’s son,” in passing and that was that. Schiff was right. That was a terrible story and wouldn’t last for a single four week run on network TV. It needs more spice and drama. His story was much more compelling, and, a bunch of his colleagues “drank the kool-aid.” You can follow the race of lemmings off the cliff on TV.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that this, and I love Senate Majority leader, McConnell’s description of “slap-dash investigation,” that this has gotten as far as it has. It is no wonder that the American people are turning it off in droves. The “Dick and Jane” novels were more credible.

Oh, by the way, keep reading about the previous Ambassador. It sounds like she was actively and aggressively opposing President Zelenskyy. So much for representing the USA and keeping out of local politics. It would seem that there are two “actionable” items in the conduct of foreign policy in Ukraine, and neither has caught the attention of our “diligent Congressional watchdogs” who claim to protect and preserve the Constitution.

Maybe we are hoping that someday pigs will fly. In case your browser is handicapped, here is a link to the actual document.

As they say, “Read it and weep.” Or, just watch the TV and “read it and sleep.”

"We Must Impeach"

Does anybody remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial? The pompous, and sadly incompetent, prosecuting attorney addressed the jury as OJ began the process of trying on the damning, blood-soaked gloves found at the murder scene. Mister DA somberly intoned, “If the glove fits, you must convict.”

Much to everyone’s surprise, and to his chagrin, the gloves, having reacted to the soaking in blood, had become hardened, and possibly even shrunken in size. OJ was not able to draw the convicting evidence over his rubber-gloved hand. He looked up with a helpless shrug and wry smile. “It won’t fit.” (I think I recall his comment, but it was obvious.)

That came to mind as I witnessed a recording of the announcement of impeachment. (Did not waste my time to watch it live.) In somber, sepulchral tones, one after another, the House bigwigs maintained their giddiness and glee as they announced the pending, potential, impeachment charges that they had developed.

I am not a lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer, but I have watched a few “procedural” dramas on TV. Even with that shallow and limited understanding, I pity the poor prosecuting attorney who will have to present this case to the jury. He is starting with three strikes.

Charge one: abuse of power. Even the rawest newcomer in the DA’s office would recognize the dearth of probity in this. Point A: The accused denies that he did anything. (Nothing surprising here. Most of the times this is the case.) Point B: The alleged victim denies that anything happened. (Again, a reluctant witness is not the worst impediment to conviction.) Point C: Nothing happened. Well now, that poses a little more of a challenge. The supposedly interrupted  aid was delivered and no QPQ (quid pro quo) was received.

I remember noticing one case, an actual one in the news, I believe, where an obviously guilty man was acquitted on appeal because the prosecuting attorney had failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. Everyone in the courtroom “knew” that the victim was dead, but that fact was never actually introduced into the evidentiary record. An appeal court subsequently overturned the verdict based on the fact that the defendant had been convicted of a non-existent crime.

Quick, before anyone notices, turn to Charge two: The President obstructed Congress. (Aside: I saw a presentation of the “Wizard of Oz” where the curtain was drawn back, showing the “wizard” as a diminutive little guy frantically attempting to present an imposing image of the great wizard, replete with a bull-horn. He turned to the audience and commanded, “Ignore that little guy behind the curtain!”) I did not hear it, but can imagine that over half of the country was cheering when the House leaders lamented that Donald J. Trump had thwarted the will of Congress. Well, the will of the House of Representatives, but why quibble? “Ignore that swell of cheering!”

Now, if DJT had simply ignored the subpoenas they might have a case. But, dastardly, dirty, devil that he is, he appealed to courts, even the Supreme Court.

The cry rang out. “We do not have time for such frivolities! We want, what we want, when we wants it. And we want, what we wants, right now!” The response reminds us of a spoiled, five-year-old child stamping his or her foot, waving arms, and screaming, “I want it! I want it now!” (Well, both sexes of spoiled brats in this instance.)

And we have yet to consider the actual merits of this brouhaha. Did the President intentionally and overtly refuse to respond to the subpoenas? Well, an appeal is a response. If they refuse to consider the appeal process as being legitimate, what kind of justice system are they proposing? Obviously, one that differs from what we currently enjoy under the Constitution.

Oh yes, they continue to trumpet their respect and love for said Constitution. That is the one that they are violating. But let’s go on. Even if the President does eventually defy these tin-pot dictators, oops, that just slipped out. If DJT actually does defy a legal order that has been validated and confirmed by the appeals process, then, and not until then, is there an obstruction charge.

The poor novice prosecutor may even begin with four strikes. No crime. No obstruction. He has less chance than the proverbial tissue paper sail in a hurricane. So, is the declaration, “We must impeach,” making less and less sense? OJ was probably guilty. President Trump is not.

One minor thought, and we will retire for the time being. If the guy in the Ukraine oil company had been the son of John Doe, Bill Gates, or Mike Pence, would the Democrats have gone so berserk at the request to investigate the “corruption?” Or, conversely, had it been the son of Donald Trump, and it had NOT been investigated in these same circumstances, would we be right back here? “Abuse of power!”

(For the record, there are multiple videos floating around the internet, dated 2016, calling for an impeachment. Why did they bother to wait three years? They didn’t need any real charges then, and they seem to have no more now.)

George Washington warned the fledgling country against political parties. His valedictory warning  may be translated today as avoiding “career politicians.” They get so caught up in their own games that they forget who the REAL Boss is. Hide and see. November’s appeal to the voters may surprise a lot of posers.

Hopefully, next time, someone with some smarts will advise, “If you find no grounds, you must not impeach.”

PSA, (Not Political if you can believe it.)

By PSA  I do not mean the test to see if you have prostate cancer. This is a public service announcement. There was an article about an employee at a Buffalo Hot Wings restaurant who died after cleaning a bathroom. The story did not say exactly what happened, but the details ring a bell in my chemical memory.

DO NOT MIX bleach with a toilet bowl cleaner. This might seem to be a good idea to effect a better clean of the toilet, but it does not. It does produce, however, a very toxic gas. And it can be fatal, even in very small amounts.

Want to hear a story? How about two? One goes way back to Grampa Williamson in Small Town, Nebraska. He used to show us kids his “magic trick.” He would take a small amount of bleach in a very small container and sprinkle toilet bowl cleaner crystals into it. “Watch it fizz,” he would instruct.

He went on to say that it smelled very bad and not to do too much or watch too long. He didn’t know that it produced a chemical called chloramine, which is lethal, even in small amounts. We were just lucky.

Story two and the merciful conclusion. Not only does bleach and toilet bowl cleaner make chloramines, mixing bleach with ammonia will also produce it. When our first son was born we used cloth diapers. The diaper pail soon took on an incredible odor. And it was not good. I was going to do a favor for my wife one day and decided to “disinfect” the thing. And, you guessed it, bleach was my disinfecting agent. Whew! What a disaster! That odor was worse than a day old urine-soaked diaper. I got out of there, pronto.

Chemist, I be. (Yoda talk there.) So I checked out the chemistry. I was blown away. (Literally and chemically.) And in those days, before Al invented the internet, we had to do it the old fashioned way. I looked in a chemistry book. The first reaction of bleach and ammonia is to form chlorine gas. You probably recognize that as a poisonous gas used in the First World War and sadly, often since. Not a good thing to breathe and live. Even survivors suffer lung damage for life.

Then the chlorine gas can react with any excess ammonia and produce the chloramine. It is a double whammy. I told my chemistry classes from then on to avoid mixing things that are not specifically designed, and designated for mixing. In actuality, it probably incited as much experimentation as it did abstinence, but they were warned. But, hopefully, they were a little more wary of the consequences than before.

The details of the incident in the news are identical to the effects of the situation that I have described. I am not sure whether the reporters omitted the details or were unaware of them. A warning can often have the reverse effect of its intentions. But, on the other hand, not warning people of danger has its own inherent costs and consequences. You are warned.

My Dad used to say, “It is a wise man who can learn from OTHER peoples’ mistakes.” Be wise. Don’t make your own mistake and possibly pay a very high price.

End of PSA.

Sanctuary City and Hypocrisy

This is almost as interesting as a headline of “Man Bites Dog.” The Tennessean (8/30/19) published an article about Mayor David Briley protesting that some Metropolitan (Nashville) agencies were cooperating with the federal government, particularly the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Here is an excerpt:

In a letter sent Thursday morning to Interim Metropolitan Auditor Gina Pruitt, Briley said it was "absolutely unacceptable" that Probation Director Robert Green and probation officers have been cooperating with ICE agents since at least 2017. Briley said the behavior "does not reflect the character of our city."

This administration is complaining about the city government cooperating with duly appointed and authorized federal law enforcement agencies. The thing that makes this story so interesting is that this is the same mayor who protests, condemns, and has attempted to ban scooter companies for operating in this fair city because they are not obeying the “laws” that he had established.

(We will not address the fact that these regulations are ex-post-facto, attempting to control pre-existing operations. Seems like some obscure document way back there in history proscribed passing laws outlawing ongoing operations. Or something like that–don’t write me to object. I know, it is on-going operations, not past ones. It is not germane  to this discussion.)

Mayor Briley is essentially claiming that his administration is justified in enforcing the laws that he chooses and ignoring those that he does not like. Seems like the term, “scoff-law” applies here. Not to the city, but to the scooter companies, in his economy. Well, maybe it applies to both.

Riders do not wear helmets. They drive where they should not. They go too fast. They are reckless. They abandon the scooters where ever they dang well please. And Mayor B doesn’t like that. (And a few other people as well.) But then he chooses to ignore laws, not just regulations or guidelines. But his rationale is that this does not reflect our city.

Does he mean, by “reflecting,” that this shows the character and conduct of the city in ignoring federal regulations, or that they want to be caring and compassionate? The “caring” moniker is somewhat suspect overall as reported by Bobbie Patray in The Tennessee Eagle Forum. Many instances all over the country deal with convicted felons being released into the community. Once free, they continue to commit further crimes because the jurisdiction refused to comply with ICE requests to hold them until the criminal could be repatriated to his own country.

It seems like the Ma’er (as they say in Chicago) only complains when it is his bull that gets gored. It is okay to disregard and disdain the laws he doesn’t like, but don’t dare scoff at his restrictions. (Ed comment from out of town: Maybe that is why about 75% of those voting for mayor in the preliminary chose a different candidate. They want him out. I didn’t get to vote in that election, but I would have been in the majority.)

“Obey my laws, but I will choose the ones I want to respect.” Does that bite?

Here is a link to the original Tennessean article along with some other comments from other government officials.

And here is a link to the newsletter from the Tennessee Eagle Forum.

No Dog in the Hunt

For the record, I do not have a dog in the hunt. The Tennessean (8/14/19) published an article about a program to dismiss minor offenses involving driving violations. They largely deal with people who are charged with driving with a revoked license, often because they had unpaid fines for other violations. These multiplied fines and charges cripple the individual’s ability to secure housing and employment.

(Without commenting on the merits of the dismissal or even the fact that the individuals have been crosswise with the law for some reason and are now compounding their predicament, we will peruse the dispute between law enforcement agencies over the dismissals, called the “Steering Clear” program.)

The mayor, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the public defender all back the program. The charges are dismissed or not prosecuted. But the police have not removed the citations from the public record, thwarting the intent of the program.

And now we come to the interesting part. Reminder, this is the part of which I have no “dog in the hunt,” but which is extremely interesting. Some adherents of the program have filed suit to have a judge order the police to expunge the records. And the police have responded that they will refuse to comply with the order, stating that there is no statutory authority for eliminating the records. The mayor’s response is to make an attempt to change the state law governing public records. (Again, we will withhold comment on the wisdom of this or the slippery slope consequences that may follow. Just exactly which and how many offenses will be dismissed and erased?)

The interesting part of this brouhaha is one at-large councilman. He said, “I get that there’s a disagreement. But I don’t think resolving that involves a police chief saying he’s not going to follow a court order. He’s there to adhere to the rule of law which means you do what the judge says and follow other legal recourse, not just ignore it."

Hold on thar, Tonto! Analyze the interior logic of this statement. (Or lack of same.) The police chief, according to Councilman at-large, is to obey the law. So if a judge orders him to do something, he has to do it. “He’s there to adhere to the rule of law....” He asserts that this means that the police chief has to do what the judge says.

But, and here, even “his side,” agrees, that state law is in play. Is he demanding that the police chief acquiesce to the judge and violate state law? This is what we loved to find in a debate contest, an internal contradiction. Official X has to obey the law. Official Y rules that Official X must do something contrary to the law. And our “impartial” (not really, it seems) observer condemns Official X because he will not “obey the law” by obeying the order from Official Y, which contravenes the law. Clear?

This is what is known as “legislating from the bench.” A judge changes the law because he or she does not like it by ordering the executive to do something other than follow the legislative mandate.

The good news for Nashville, but maybe not so much for Councilman at-large, is that rational heads seem to be prevailing. Several parties have proposed and even submitted proposed legislation to change the legal basis of the program.

And, since I have no dog in this hunt, I will not have to vote in favor of some alternative,  hopefully, more logical, Councilman at-large in the next election. But it will be very interesting to watch the proceedings as time passes. Just a passing thought. If the subjects of this tempest in a teapot would resist breaking a law in the first place, they would not be in the “pickle” of not being able to pay their fines, losing their driver’s license, driving in violation of that law–a second offense–and then having further fines and sanctions.

For what it is worth.

Apollo 11

This is rich. I just read an article that reported that over 32 million Americans doubt the veracity of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon.

I read the historical accounts and one of them caught my eye. It turns out that Luna 15, a Russian space vehicle was in orbit around the moon at the time the Eagle landed and overflew the site. The Russian craft had been intended to land, retrieve a soil sample and leave before the Americans did. Unfortunately for them and good for the US, they were unable to land when they anticipated and remained in orbit. They had a literal bird’s eye view of the NASA men on the surface along with their craft.

When the Russian engineers attempted to land their vehicle later, they miscalculated and crashed into the side of a lunar mountain. (Note: They needed Neil Armstrong to pilot it. But I digress.) Despite crashing, the probe recorded telemetry and, pictures, which were transmitted back to the earth. Now, think a second. Given the frantic race to beat each other to the moon, do you think that if the Russian propagandists had pictures of an empty landing area that they would not have posted them all around the world as the Apollo astronauts supposedly landed and were lauded for their “successful,” but faked trip to the moon?

After completely humiliating the US space program they would have trumpeted their own successes, even if the landings were unmanned. But, even though they did manage to land a couple times before the Americans did, they were not able to return them to the earth. Only the US has sent manned teams, six in all, to the moon and back. So the conspiracy theorists have a mighty tall mountain of evidence to claim that they were all fake. And the mountain of evidence is even higher than the pile of, well, you know, that the deniers have thrown up.

Are the Russian photos somewhere? They would be fun to see. One other little nugget I discovered was on a site discussing ham radio operators tracking Apollo 11. I quote it here.
Due to the necessary trajectory of the spacecraft, the enroute communications did not appear to be coming from a direct line between the Earth and Moon, which is what another poster is referring to in the earlier comment. Trying to set up something that has the proper characteristics requires, well, that one has a spacecraft with people in it on its way to the moon.


Another note reported that an observatory in England tracked both the Luna 15 and Apollo 11 to the surface of the moon by measuring doppler shift. (Gee I love that kind of talk.) They literally “watched” the Luna 15 crash as it descended too rapidly. Isn’t science great?

Thank you for your time and attention. Some people will contest that the sun came up today, so we just humor them and hurry on to more important topics.

VAR

Disclaimer: There is no political or partisan (maybe) perspective in this post. :>)

VAR

The VAR or Video Assistant Referee has shown up at the World Cup and other soccer (fooootball) games recently. In the game between the United States and England, the VAR “giveth and taketh away.” The supposed tying goal by England by their star, “Google Eyes,” was disallowed. I thought she was offsides when the play ran live.

(Disclaimer: I was rooting for the US but I am sure, and VAR confirmed it, that she was a little ahead. Incidentally years ago a famous football play in the game between UT and Auburn had a similar “close play” and I saw it correctly, as confirmed by instant replay. A friend of mine, an Auburn alum, said the video was at a bad angle and therefore was wrong. Oh yes, one last item. Recall the Music City Miracle? I could tell clearly that the lateral had gone backward by at least the width of the yard line. Wycheck’s foot was on the line as he threw it and it was a sidearm pass. Clearly in front of the line. Dyson caught the ball, facing his own goal, just in front of his foot which was planted on the line. At worst, the pass was a literal lateral that did not move down the field. Our Buffalo friends again argued that the angle was bad and the “pass” was indeed forward and illegal. Perspective, and I do not mean camera angle, comes into play here. Back to soccer.)

So the tying goal did not count, but a few minutes later VAR awarded a penalty kick on a play that certainly did not look like interference on first or second or even third viewing. Only when another view, one from down field and behind the play, could we see the offending “clip.” We should have intuited that from the fact that the offender fell down after the encounter. These athletes seldom fall without being hit some way. (We will withhold commentary on the blatant embellishment that occurs in our beloved game. Can VAR penalize that as well? It seems to work in hockey. But I digress.)

The point of VAR is that it affords multiple camera angles and essentially provides five, or six, or seven, or more additional officials to manage the game. Now instead of only three pairs of eyes, effectively only two as the second assistant referee is over half a field (or pitch) away, we now have multiple, close up viewers from which to make the correct calls.

As a basketball and softball umpire/referee I was counseled and, yes, harangued by seasoned officials, to “be in the right place to make the call.” You cannot make a call on a play that you cannot, and did not see.” With VAR and the various instant replays, that is no longer a critical component of competent officiating. We now “get it right,” most of the time, anyway. (See note above on perspective.)

While contemplating this subject, my mind wandered to what might have been. For instance, in soccer, the infamous or famous, depending on your perspective, “hand of God” goal in soccer would have never happened. Diego Maradona, of Argentina, scored a goal against England in the 1986 World Cup quarterfinals. The video clearly showed him as offside and using his hand to propel the ball into the goal. (The existing video shows it, without the multiple VAR angles currently in use.) At least two referees were asleep on that play. For the record, Argentina, and Maradona again, scored a second goal to win by a 2-1 score, making the HOG goal critical. Argentina went on to win the cup against West Germany.

If VAR had been in play the goal would have been disallowed and all this delicious irony would not color our soccer legends. Additionally, the US lost a goal in the previous game on an offsides that wasn’t. At least, it didn’t look like it to my unbiased eye.

Well, let’s go on with the game. Go USA! Go VAR. Have a great day and Fourth of July.

Ho Hum, Here We Go Again

Back in the '60s and '70s, Nebraska had a Senator named Hruska. (It sounds like you are saying “Husker” while clearing your throat.) He served during the time that the Senate was controlled by the Democratic party. He was not noted for any major, significant legislation, but did vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

His only claim to fame was when the esteemed Senator from Nebraska was supporting the nomination to SCOTUS of G. Harrold Carswell, a Nixon nominee in 1970. Some criticized Judge Carswell as being mediocre. Responding to that criticism, Hruska claimed that:
“Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters, and Cardozos.”

Boy did I take a ribbing from my liberal friends at the University of Iowa. Yeah, give us mediocres a chance. “Are all of you guys from Nebraska mediocre?” What could I say?

We may just give the world a little levity. Well, New York seems to have followed Nebraska’s lead, only instead of sending someone to the Senate for over 20 years, they sent AOC to the House of Representatives. But she has certainly not lost any time entertaining the population with drivel and claptrap.

The latest statement equating Nazi concentration camps with the ICE detention centers has even upset some liberals. One comment I read was that there were not voluntary lines of potential inmates streaming into Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz, and about 18 others. Let’s see, six million dead in Germany and how many have died in ICE custody?

Nope, I think that there is a difference there. One question comes to mind. What reputable reporter would put a microphone in the face of someone so clearly factually challenged? At least she hasn’t promised to cure cancer.

I would counsel us to ignore it, but, like the insurance commercial with a walrus blocking the hockey net, it is pretty hard to just play on like it doesn’t exist. Hey, have you heard the one about how slapping sanctions on Mexico will have a negligible or negative effect on illegal immigration? How about the “tuff talk will only alienate North Korea?”  I will withhold judgment on the Iran situation. But I would expect that they will back down. Their president or premier or whatever he is, has already claimed that they will not go to war. Good choice.

How is the weather in your neck of the woods? Get much rain last night? Has it gotten hot yet...?

God Is Not Dead

No this is not another movie review or critique. One is enough for a while, although the movie “God Is Not Dead” was a good one. I even have the hat to prove it. Or is it a T-shirt that proves things? Oh well, God is not Dead.

That is the message of Easter. God came to earth, in the body of Jesus. That body walked and talked and humanly lived on this planet for roughly 33 years. While here, He did nothing wrong. Read the Old Testament rules for behavior and bringing a sacrifice. Then add to that the rules about the preparation and presentation of the sacrifice by the priests. That cumulative load of detail was completely and fully satisfied by this one Man.

And, for His trouble, He was crucified on a hill. I heard a comment that said the hill named Golgotha, just outside the city of Jerusalem, was transformed into Calvary by what happened there. It is interpreted by the evangelists as meaning "the place of a skull" ( Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17) In Hebrew, “Gulgoleth” ( Numbers 1:2; 1 Chronicles 23:3, 24; 2 Kings 9:35), means "a skull."

The name Calvary is used only in Luke 23:33. That is the Latin name “Calvaria,” which was used as a translation of the Greek word “Kranion,” by which the Hebrew word “Gulgoleth” was interpreted. It also means "the place of a skull." The important thing, regardless of what it is called, is that it was the place where the eternal sacrifice for sins, my sins and your sins, was consumated.

Some atheists have claimed that the supposed death of Jesus, God, proves that there is actually no God at all. “If God died, then why didn’t everything cease to exist or at least fly apart?”

I think the more pertinent question is, “Why did not the entire universe implode on this minuscule, insignificant planet that had the temerity to crucify the Creator of the cosmos?” But it didn’t.

And three days later, Three Days Later, THREE DAYS LATER, He rose! As Aslan in the “Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” explained, death was reversed and made to work backwards.

The last time we were together we looked at a couple of hymns that celebrate this glorious fact. (Link below: “Christ the Lord is Risen Today,” and “I’m Saved by the Blood of the Crucified One”) An appropriate song for today is “Up from the Grave He Arose.” The next phrase is, “...with a mighty triumph o’er His foes.”

Focus on the Family spent two days with Lee Strobel considering his quest to disprove the Resurrection. Instead, it verified it. (https://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/understanding-the-importance-of-easter-in-new-ways-pt1
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/media/daily-broadcast/understanding-the-importance-of-easter-in-new-ways-pt2)

I love the words of the first hymn, “Christ the Lord is Risen Today.” They go, “Death cannot keep its prey....” All hell was unleashed in an attempt to thwart the Resurrection and keep Him dead. But all the power of heaven crushed that opposition and THREE DAYS LATER, He rose! He is alive! Mind if I get a little excited? I am. God is not dead! What a story to tell. And the significance is not just that He either never existed, or has been banished from reality, but that He really was dead–for three days. Then He took His life back and rose from that grave, never to die again.

The Good News? I have that same testimony. I may die once, but I cannot and will not die again. God is alive, and so am I! GOD IS NOT DEAD! Glory! Hallelujah!

Have a Blessed Easter–Resurrection Sunday. God is not dead.


Friday, April 19, 2019 Everything Is Coming Up Easter https://reflectionsfromjim.blogspot.com/2019/04/everything-is-coming-up-easter.html

Collusion

The multiyear Muller investigation which has spent, according to different reports, $25 million dollars or more, has declared that there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Nothing happened. And the Democrats seem to be attempting to reprise the Nixon events. Nixon was not involved with the original Watergate break-in, but was actively and vigorously active in attempting to cover up the crime. That was a crime and he resigned.

Well, this is completely different. Nothing happened, so how can a cover up or suppression of the investigation apply? (Just a thought from a non-legal observer: How can the indictments that arose out of the investigation be upheld since the original premise was flawed. If there is no reasonable cause to believe a crime has occurred, a “stop and frisk” is illegal, and any evidence is excluded as “fruit of a poisoned tree?” But I digress.)

And the mega-million dollar investigation concluded that there was no collusion and, incidentally,  no proof that interference occurred either. Instead of accepting the result, a 400 page document, they are instigating an investigation into the investigation. Just musing, one wonders how many have actually read the entire 400 pages. I didn’t.  I am satisfied with the review done by Attorney General Barr.

So the opposition, disloyal opposition it seems, is attempting to produce a crime from supposed  “attempts to suppress the investigation” of something that did not happen. That is as dopey as Burger King selling a CBD infused hamburger.

Happy Birthday

There is a story going around that was featured on “Good Morning America” and the internet. What a great story. It is about Bella, a school girl in London, KY. Here is the link.

This student gathers party supplies, including a cake mix and frosting (can’t forget that!) and provides them to the family resource center at her school for distribution to children whose parents are not able to provide them a birthday party. This is for classmates and other students who might not otherwise have a birthday celebration.

“I thank God for the opportunity for letting me be able to shine my light and show that I love my neighbors,” Bella said.  That is a great story for the Easter week.

She was in the first grade when she conceived this idea two years ago. She may be in the third grade in school, but she is a senior in the school of life. Thank you, Bella, for making my day.

Unplanned

If you have not yet seen the movie, “Unplanned” by all means go see it. The “R” label is for bloody and disturbing scenes. And they are bloody disturbing. That may be an obscenity in England, and surely, abortion is an obscenity.

Go see it.

But, we cannot leave it there. At one point, Abby Johnson, the former director of an abortion clinic cried, “How can God forgive me?” She had “presided” over about 22,000 abortions.

I wanted to stand in the theater and shout, “Because of Easter!” The Old Testament carefully and and in elaborate detail outlines the procedure for sacrifice and worship. It is difficult and demanding. We are talking about approaching the perfectly holy God. A slip-shod, careless approach is neither fitting nor efficacious. And as Aaron’s two oldest sons discovered, it can be fatal. (Leviticus 10) And if I recognize my abject failure to be holy and pure, I will cry out with Abby, “How can God forgive ME?”

He sent His perfect Son, the Holy Son, to be the sacrifice described and prescribed in the Old Testament to pay for my failures. We celebrate that every year at Easter. And how can we be sure that it was enough? Are my sins forgiven and, as the old song goes, “buried in the depths of the deepest sea?”

Romans 4:25 eliminates that doubt. Hallelujah! Speaking of Christ Jesus,
He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (Another translation says, “on account of our justification.”)

“Delivered” means that He was brought as the lamb in the sacrifice, and died. And when God evaluated the offering, He declared it “satisfactory.” In fact it was perfect. And to demonstrate that for Abby, and me, and all the world to see that He was pleased and accepted the sacrifice, He raised Jesus from the dead. Another Easter hymn goes, “Death cannot hold its prey, Jesus my Saviour!” Shout it out!

We are forgiven, freed from guilt. And the book of James instructs us in our behavior. James 2:18b
“I will show you my faith by my works.”

True faith results in works and as we sare assured that we are forgiven by Jesus’ resurrection. People see our faith by our works. James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
We cannot see “faith,” but the results are visible in our works, actions. We see God's work in justification by the Resurrection. And my "works" include the fact that I oppose abortion.

[Note: Three states have approved, and eight others have pending, bills to prohibit abortion after a heart beat is detected. It is a baby. Our Planned Parenthood friends, according to Abby, used to have a room labeled P. O. C. The official name was Products of Conception, but the workers called it “Parts of Children.” Medically it is imperative that the abortionist ensure that everything is “out” for any part left behind can fester and infect the mother. They have to verify that the whole baby is in the petri dish. Yes, “obscene” is not appropriate. We need something more intense. Stop it! End of note.]

I had not planned to write on abortion or movies this Easter season. The final credits of the movie had UNPLANNED in all caps. The UN was crossed out with a horizontal line through the letters and a vertical line between the U and the N. A cross changed everything. It was God’s plan from the foundation of the world.

Hallelujah, what a Savior. He planned it all.

Terrible News

I just read this article about 66 tons of human feces on Mt. Denali, which was Mt. McKinley when we were in school. What an environmental disaster about to be unleashed on the unsuspecting State of Alaska. “Move away from the mountain!” That was the first thought I had concerning my family in Alaska.

Waaaiiitttt a minute. What day is this? Oh yes. The day after the last day of March. You almost got me there. This is the first one I have seen in a while.

Happy April Day. Or is it April’s Fool Day? April Fools for a big bunch, maybe. How fun.

Space Junk

India shot down one of its own satellites the other day and is proudly proclaiming that it is now a “space poser.” (Oops, I accidentally mistyped the word and got poser instead of power. That might be prescient.) It wants to be a space power.

The point that I wanted to make, aside from the inadvertent one above was that each time a space object is shattered by smashing it to smithereens it adds to the load of “junk” that is circling the planet. This article expresses the problem.

The final paragraph sparked an idea. Since it is possible to monitor each piece of the “smithereened” satellite, India, and any other country that adds to the load of space junk, should be charged a fine for every piece that strikes the earth and does damage. A lawsuit for damages is often trebled as a deterrence to further offenses. Maybe the world court should award damage caused times three for every space junk strike recorded and reported.

In the old days, we simply tossed trash out of the car window, not worrying about any trash buildup. But that was quickly countered by laws that have, by and large, kept the highways and byways reasonably trash free. And culprits are fined significantly if they can be apprehended.

We need a “Lady Bird Johnson” to advocate for clean space-ways.

Tennessee Governor Lee's Education Plan

Governor Lee’s education plan is pure genius. He has “split the baby” without killing the baby. As I read the objections I was impressed with what seemed to be a bit of disingenuity.

The first argument was that taking the money away from local school districts would further erode their ability to educate the students who remained. Note: the plan will offer a stipend to students in failing schools to attend an alternative education venue. The plan includes a provision that will provide reimbursement funds to the schools to compensate them for the “lost student revenue.” Governor Lee answered that objection before it was raised. With great difficulty, I will refrain from speculating on the motivations of the protesters.

A second objection was that many of the failing students live in rural areas and have no access to alternate educational options, so the plan will not help them. That is a self-refuting argument. If they cannot leave because of no alternatives, the whole issue is a moot point. The objection seems to have the purpose of keeping the kids in the public schools. According to their own argument, that will happen. Perhaps it should include an incentive to initiate education options in “under served” areas. Would that please them?

The third point raised is that it is unconstitutional to take money and “give” it to religious entities. The Supreme Court has ruled on that time and time again. The most recent one that I can recall is the church school in Kansas, I believe, that was given state money to upgrade the safety of its playground. This upgrading program was open to secular schools and this school qualified. SCOTUS was clear in that legitimate state goals were achieved with the awards, and refusing that aid to the church school was not permitted.

In short, the Governor’s plan furthers the educational goal of the state. The protest that schools will “waste or not efficiently utilize” the funds falls short as well. The kids are failing in the status quo. Keeping them there serves no purpose. The upgraded funding might even help the struggling public schools.

Protesting the plan seems disingenuous at best and self serving at its worst. If everyone truly is interested in the students’ welfare, why not try something different? As the old saying goes, it is insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.