Opinion

Opinion (20)

As a new Minnesotan, I thought I should familiarize myself with the political process in my new state. I was politically active in Montana, but never attended a caucus or convention because they aren’t held in Montana. Back in 2010, the Republican Party scrapped its caucus after just two years, citing its unpopularity as the reason. The Republican Party and I finally found something upon which we agree completely.

Firstly, caucuses and conventions are never representative of an entire community. They are representative of the people in the community who don’t have to work when the caucuses and conventions are held. Those who work weekends aren’t even available to cast a vote at an organizing unit convention or city convention let alone drive three hours roundtrip on their own dime and pay for a hotel for three nights in order to attend a state party convention.

The lack of minority representation was blatant at my very first precinct caucus and even more so at the organizing unit convention and city convention. Despite my neighborhood being 41 percent black, the attendance at all the caucuses and conventions was probably three-fourths white or so. If that’s not reason enough to scrap party caucuses and conventions, here’s some more.

Precinct Caucus

My first Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party precinct caucus gave me some hope for this thing we call democracy that isn’t actually democracy. I met people in my community who cared for my community as much as me, and while the turnout was a bit discouraging, I vowed to do something about it. I volunteered to call my DFL neighbors to remind them to attend the next precinct caucus so my community wasn’t underrepresented.

While caucus agenda items were accomplished slowly to start, the pace picked up as everyone got the hang of things. We conducted a relatively efficient meeting. I submitted two resolutions to be considered for adoption by the party: one to legalize cannabis, and another calling for an independent redistricting commission to draw district boundaries instead of allowing politicians to employ partisan gerrymandering to make district races less competitive. Both were accepted as written to be considered at the upcoming organizing unit convention, and both were voted to be included in the DFL platform at the state convention.  

I wanted to see the ugly innards of Minnesota politics, so I volunteered to serve as a voting delegate at the organizing unit convention as well as the city convention. I got exactly what I wanted, but it I didn’t want it for very long.

Organizing Unit Convention

The organizing unit convention, again, started slowly. Technical difficulties with audio and video equipment resulted in a late start. Once we were underway, however, I appreciated the speeches delivered by DFL candidates running for various offices, including governor and sheriff. I got a sense of who I liked and collected some reading materials on the candidates.

Then the agenda was slowed to a crawl as something called “sub-caucusing” took place. Sub-caucusing is like a first-grade, organization activity and musical chairs combined. Poster-sized sheets of paper were distributed to delegates looking to start a sub-caucus and recruit enough delegates to earn a vote or more at the DFL state convention. A sub-caucus is an organizing unit. Delegates starting a sub-caucus would write their candidate or cause of choice on the poster paper and announce it to the crowd, hoping to recruit enough delegates to earn a vote or more at the DFL state convention.

Of course, with so many people in one place, there were more than 20 sub-caucuses, each of which was directed to a certain area of the high school auditorium. Delegates then seek out the sub-caucus they prefer and take a seat with the rest of the delegates in their organizing unit. That’s not the end of the game, though. Sub-caucuses who fail to recruit enough delegates to earn a vote at the state convention can merge with other sub-caucuses. The more than 20 sub-caucuses were whittled down to about half that in a half hour or so, combining the names of sometimes three or four sub-caucuses.

I kept it simple and joined the Cannabis Caucus, and we attracted enough delegates to earn a vote at the DFL state convention, I think for the first time. Two members of our organizing unit had experience as either a state delegate or an alternate, and one of them was already planning to attend the convention in Rochester, so we elected them to vote on our behalf at the DFL state convention.

City Convention

The DFL city convention was a mess from the start. We started almost two hours late because of technical difficulties when one loud voice could have kicked off the agenda. Instead we waited for someone to troubleshoot the audio system in the gym at North High School in Minneapolis.

Since we were seated by district and precinct, I struck up conversations with my neighbors, some of whom I remembered from the precinct caucus and organizing unit convention. I asked them for whom they intended to vote, and we were mostly in agreement. I familiarized myself with the candidates for school board and spoke to a few of them. Then I sat around for hours until the school board candidates gave their speeches, which actually influenced my vote.

The rest of the nearly eight-hour day was spent either arguing over the rules, procedure or order of the agenda items. Most people left immediately after the winners of the DFL endorsement for school board were announced. I stuck around after to elect people to city DFL positions to make sure a fiasco like that never happened again. Frankly, I could do without caucuses and conventions entirely if we just put everyone on the primary ballot. Most who don’t receive the endorsement end up running anyway.

In Minnesota, we have five pairs of DFL candidates running for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The DFL state convention is supposed to weed out the competition prior to the primary election. Party conventions are designed for political parties to unite behind specific candidates, and specifically, candidates the majority of party delegates like most. But when everyone runs anyway, there isn’t much unification occurring.

I knew who I liked for Governor the moment she opened her mouth. Erin Murphy was my candidate after delivering a two-minute speech at the organizing unit convention. She sounded most adamant and passionate about the changes she would attempt to make, and I agreed with those changes. But she wasn’t the candidate with the most progressive stance on cannabis, which is a big issue for me.

Of the three candidates most likely to win the primary, Tim Walz is most supportive of legal cannabis, going so far as to say all those incarcerated for cannabis should be released. Murphy isn’t willing to go that far, nor is she willing to allow home cultivation of cannabis. Walz is, but he doesn’t seem to me like a candidate with the enthusiasm to win a swing-state election for an office as high as Governor, and that seems to be a sentiment shared by DFL voters.

Murphy, with her support from the nurses union, secured the DFL endorsement at the state convention, but she was running third in the latest poll conducted. According to NBC News and Marist, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson had a four-point lead on Walz and led Murphy by 17 points as of July 19. The very next day her running mate, U.S. Representative Rick Nolan, was accused of allowing a top congressional aide resign quietly in 2015 after being alleged of harassing young, female staffers.

The Minnesota DFL primary election for Governor is effectively a three-way race, and since ranked-choice voting isn’t employed in Minnesota primaries (it was in Maine for the first time and Mainers voted to keep it that way), DFL voters won’t have the luxury of choosing the candidate they like best. They’ll have to choose the candidate they think has the best chance against a Republican challenger.

Luckily for the Democrats, the Republican Party is experiencing the same problem. The GOP endorsement went to Jeff Johnson and Donna Bergstrom, but former Governor Tim Pawlenty is still running and could very well win the primary despite losing his party’s endorsement. What was the point of these conventions again? I say forget caucuses and conventions and just put everyone on the primary ballot. Political parties would save some money, we’d all save some time, and the primary election is the best means we have to include as many people as possible in the democratic process, or whatever you want to call it.


If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Know Your Rights

Alex Jones, host of Infowars and known conspiracy theorist, had his personal Facebook account suspended for 30 days as a result of violating the social network’s bullying and hate speech community standards.

While the suspension only applies to Jones’s personal Facebook account, he also cannot post to pages for which he serves as an admin. It doesn’t stop other Infowars admins from doing Jones’s bidding, however. Facebook also removed four Infowars videos for violation of the community standards previously stated a day after YouTube did the same. In the videos, Jones denounces Muslim immigrants to Europe and the creators of a transgender cartoon.

Not only has Facebook been alleged of being soft on digital crime committed by its users, the social network has taken steps to protect some of the more popular Facebook pages because they create considerable revenue for the company. Channel 4 Dispatches sent an undercover documentarian to work as a content moderator for a Dublin-based Facebook contractor and found that leading, far-right activists like Tommy Robinson of Britain First received special protection via “shielded review.”

Shielded review lifts a Facebook page or account from typical moderation by contractors to in-house moderation by Facebook staff, allowing for more careful consideration of the cash at stake. Well, Jones and his Infowars are far more popular than Robinson and Britain First.

Britain First’s Facebook page has just 7,100 likes and Robinson’s personal page has received 834,000 likes. Jones’s personal Facebook page has 1.6 million likes, and his Infowars page has nearly a million. So it stands to reason that if Britain First was subject to shielded review despite its 7,100 followers, then the Jones and Infowars pages would be monitored by Facebook staff and not independent contractors unconcerned with Facebook’s revenue and stock price.

Speaking of stock price, the day before Jones was slapped with a suspension, Facebook’s stock lost nearly 20 percent of its value. As of this writing, it’s hovering around $172 – down from an all-time high of $218.62.

Facebook’s long taken flak for it’s stance on fake news. “Just being false” is not grounds for suspension or even removal of content from the social network, according to its head of News Feed, John Hegeman. But allowing the publication of fake news using a product called “News Feed” is hypocrisy by anyone’s standards. Fake news is not news, therefore news feed is not a news feed. It never was. News Feed has been and always will be a social feed. What your friends’ cats are doing gets just as much attention as the day’s biggest headlines you’re most likely to read.

I can understand why Facebook doesn’t want to moderate the publishing of fake news. It would be incredibly costly to patrol and enforce a community standard banishing the publication of fake news. But publishing fake news is dangerous and has very real consequences, as Facebook knows all too well after the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

If publishing fake news isn't against Facebook community policy, the very name "News Feed" is misleading and misinformation in itself. False news is not news, and there's a difference between misreported news and false news. If Facebook is not going to attempt to make "News Feed" an actual news feed, the "News Feed" name should be scrapped for something more representative of the Facebook feed, like "Stories" or "Happenings."

I asked Hegeman, the vice president of News Feed, if there has ever been a discussion about renaming News Feed but received no reply via LinkedIn. It seems that would be enough to get Facebook off the hook for other people's publishing of fake news without having to monitor it. Facebook has an opportunity to save itself a lot of trouble by simply changing the name of something poorly named in the first place.

At least Alex Jones’s Infowars is appropriately named. There is a war over information. It’s just his definition of information that is misinformed.


If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Alex Jones Show, The Costa Report, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Know Your Rights

When you are dealing with frauds and liars, listen more to what they don’t say than what they do.” -Dr. DaShanne Stokes

One thing that I have found during my time as a Christian is that no matter how many times you share the truth with the people in this country and the things that demand their attention, they will not listen until after the damage is done.

Many people in this country act as if they do not live politics, yet, “Life is politics, you do it or it does you.”

Friends, there is no in-between (Revelation 3:16).

Just this morning I woke up to see a brand new post about a book titled “The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.”

Another post on the same feed showed that Donald Trump's approval ratings are at 88%.

I still cannot believe how ignorant the American people have become, or should I say, willfully blind and ignorant (a deliberate finger on their eyeballs) to what is right in front of their faces (Jeremiah 5:21; Hosea 4:6)

Let me explain.

Through divisive measures, the CIA-controlled media would have all eyes on Hillary Clinton attacking and accusing President Donald Trump at will (vice versa-Trump attacking her, as well (Mark 3:25)) as a “racist” to a “sexual assaulter” to “surrendering to the Russians” to “collusion” etc…, while she is found selling uranium ore to the Russians without fear of consequence.  Why is she so emboldened?  Friends, Hillary has been given a free hand to commit scandal after scandal and crime after crime for decades in this country and that without lawful consequence.

Is she being investigated by Donald Trump’s Department of Justice? Donald claimed he can do whatever he wants with it. Donald promised that he was going to bring forth that special prosecutor on the campaign trail. Has he to date? Not at all. The circus of politics goes on (Psalm 9:17). But worry not, President Donald Trump is tweeting Hillary Clinton's video
advocating for "strong, prosperous Russia."

Maybe Donald Trump should look up what the purpose of government entails. Like that of restraining men from sin." 1 John 3:4 Leaving off justice encourages and strengthens criminal activities America, it does not suppress them. (Proverbs 17:15).

Remember, Donald Trump told the American people that we all owe Hillary Clinton a major debt of gratitude during his presidential campaign victory speech. The exact opposite of what he said he was going to do on the campaign trail.

Furthermore, Hillary is not being investigated or indicted for any of her crimes or scandals against “We the People.”  She is being rewarded while “We the people” are being violated and preyed upon.

To prove the point, Hillary Clinton signed two book deals with Simon & Schuster with a record advance of $8 million, which is just behind the Pope's $8.5 million deal.

What about Barack Hussein Obama? Somehow or another, Barry Soetoro still feels that he is the sitting president, though Americans should remind him that he is not. Barack, like Hillary, has a free hand to attack Donald Trump, and of course, like the Clintons, there are no consequences. All of it is created warfare.

“Obama accuses Trump of wanting war with Iran,” “Intel chiefs gave Russia a pass, and now blame Donald Trump” and, of course, Donald Trump Blames Obama. All this is in the daily playbook of politics, which is designed to divert Americans from what special interest groups behind the corrupt are really doing behind closed doors in handing this country over to those who mean to destroy her.

Obama signed a Netflix deal to produce series and films, and his book deal biddings have reached $60 million dollars.

Keep in mind, America, that this is all a show in an attempt to deceive you into believing that the Obama’s have the approbation of the American people. They clearly do not!

Other criminal administrations in recent history that have been rewarded for their crimes are Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  The rights to their books, as if to suggest anyone will actually read them, sold for $10-15 million.

Lest you thought the book deals (rewards) fell only to those who have been called presidents, or First Ladies, let's take a quick look at those around the administrations.

Former FBI Director James Comey is being called out for “his high crimes and misdemeanors,” and instead of him being charged for his “high crimes,” he is cashing in on a $10 million book deal.

Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Former DNC chair Donna Brazile, who got a book deal after helping Hillary Clinton rig the primaries, have all been rewarded, and the list goes on (Luke 16:15).

Is this how you make America great again, Americans? Leave off justice which guards our liberties? (Isaiah 51:4)

Does this sound and act like an administration that loves this country and it’s people? (Matthew 7:16)

The Atlantic reported:

“There is no campaign promise that Donald Trump has failed to honor more flagrantly than his oft repeated pledge to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. He has violated the letter of his promise and trampled all over its spirit. His supporters ought to be furious. But few perceive the scale of his betrayal or its brazenness.”

Americans need to look beyond the facade of President Donald Trump's administration. What he is saying and what is actually happening are two different stories. America is under attack like never before, and a good number of people in this country have fallen asleep (all by design). Matthew 13:25 Now is not the time to go to sleep, but rather, it is time to raise your Gadsden flags and declare in unison "Don't Tread on Me!."

We know that Scripture tells us there is a covenant of Hell and death leveled at people by whom they mean to rule. Isaiah 28:18 We know what it means when Scripture tells us:

"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”

Yet, these forget the reply that the Lord gives on our behalf.

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.” -Psalm 2:2-5

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can fool God at no time! Amen.

--

 

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This op-ed was originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

 

Unless you’ve been playing fantasy baseball and were in need of an undrafted reliever like me, you might not have known who Josh Hader was until the 2018 MLB All-Star Game. Hader’s All-Star selection was a bittersweet honor in more than one way. He allowed three runs in a third of an inning and then discovered after the game that he’d have to complete sensitivity training for racist, sexist and homophobic tweets made at 17.

The tweets were uncovered by Twitter users with too much time on their hands. These investigations into the social media statements of minors are unfair to the public figures who made the statements because minors aren’t entirely responsible for themselves, legally speaking. Journalists seldom quote minors for that very reason. Their parents share responsibility for their words and actions until they’re 18.

While I agree with my colleague, Dan Szczepanek of Grandstand Central, that Hader’s “young and dumb” excuse isn’t good enough, he isn’t solely responsible for the social media statements he made as a minor. His parents share that responsibility, but not in the court of public opinion. It is troubling, however, that just seven years ago and even to this day, racist, sexist and homophobic thoughts are running through the minds of American minors.

On the Foul Play-by-Play podcast, my attorney and I discussed how to remedy the racist, sexist and homophobic sentiment that seems to be growing or at least getting louder in America. Reforming haters is a delicate process not unlike treating addiction. It requires the dedication of the addict first, and an empathetic, supportive community providing evidence consistently contradicting the addict’s former mentality. But hate, like addiction, isn’t curable, only treatable.

“There’s no magic cure, no such thing as a ‘life after hate,’ only a life of fighting not to succumb to it” Wes Enzinna wrote for Mother Jones’s cover story in the July/August issue. Not everyone is as fortunate as Hader was to grow into a man in an environment conducive for avoiding an addiction to hate.

Without social and familial support and a safe environment facilitating the formation of relationships between diverse groups of people, haters gonna hate. That’s why Barack Obama’s administration added the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule to the Fair Housing Act in order to address segregation that persists in public housing. Department of Housing and Human Development Secretary Ben Carson has since suspended enforcement of the rule, resulting in a lawsuit brought by the National Fair Housing Alliance and joined by the state of New York.

Those living in environments that perpetuate hate can also learn something from Hader’s hateful tweets coming back to bite him. Even parents perpetuating hate in the home have their children’s preservation as their top priority, so talking with their children about safe social media usage, similar to the talk about practicing safe sex could result in fewer instances of hate speech online.

If children in the moment are too emotional to consider the effect their words might have on others, perhaps they’ll resist using hate speech over their own interest in self-preservation. Just as images of STDs are used in sex education courses to scare young people into practicing abstinence or safe sex, stories like Hader’s and Roseanne Barr’s might be enough to scare children from publicly expressing hate if their parents explain how imperative it is that their children are employable.

And if Hader’s and Barr’s stories aren’t scary enough, or children don’t understand why they should protect something they don’t yet have, maybe they’ll protect something they do. A fifth of undergraduate college students believe physical force is an acceptable response to “offensive and hurtful statements,” according to a 2017 Brookings Institution survey. So hate speakers have to consider whether they’re prepared to defend themselves, although most instances of violence resulting from hate speech indicate they are, which is why it’s so important that Hader do more than apologize and complete sensitivity training.

Colin Kaepernick didn’t just take a knee during the national anthem. He thoughtfully explained why he took a knee when asked, sought feedback from military personnel as to avoid offending them and backed up his words and actions with his money. Kaepernick has donated a million dollars to organizations working in oppressed communities as of January. Life After Hate, an organization working to reform haters, received a $50,000 donation from Kaepernick. Since Hader doesn’t make millions of dollars, he should donate his time and image to the movement to end hate.

If Hader was willing to take the time to trademark his nickname, “Haderade,”he can take the time to start a nonprofit called Hater Aid, an organization that helps haters stop hating. I’ve started two nonprofit organizations, make a lot less than Hader’s $555,500 annual salary and had no previous training. If he needs some guidance, the National Council of Nonprofits provides all the information he needs.

I would only recommend Hader focus his efforts locally to start. If the standing ovation he received from Brewers fans at Miller Park in his first appearance since the All-Star Game is any indication, he still has the support of Milwaukeeans, at least until he struggles to get MLB hitters out. Regardless of his performance on the field, Milwaukeeans will appreciate Hader focusing his off-field efforts locally, and there’s plenty to be done in Milwaukee.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are four active hate groups in Milwaukee alone and nine statewide. So Hater Aid’s initial mission should be to eradicate hate in Milwaukee first, then the state of Wisconsin, and then the region and nation. It’s also cheaper and easier to start and run a locally-focused nonprofit than one with a state or national focus.

With a modest, tax-deductible donation from Hader to found Hater Aid and a bit of paperwork to incorporate the organization and acquire a tax exemption, Hater Aid could be up and running before the end of the baseball season. MLB and the Brewers’ public relations department would love for Hader to dedicate some free time to meeting with former haters in the Milwaukee area willing to share how they managed to stop hating. If interested, they could serve as Hader’s Hater Aiders, a group of volunteers, interns and paid staff to run the day-to-day operations of Hater Aid, including a 24-hour, hater hotline for haters who want to stop hating but aren’t sure how.

If Hader were to take these steps, his national image wouldn’t just be repaired — it’d be more valuable than it was before the tweets were uncovered. It never hurts to be a role model and a community contributor in contract negotiations, either. By the time Hader’s eligible for free agency in 2024, Hader’s Hater Aiders will have helped haters stop hating throughout Milwaukee and, perhaps, the state of Wisconsin if not the entire country.

Hader might never have been addicted to hate, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be the face of a movement to end hate. He should embrace and take advantage of this opportunity if he wants to earn a standing ovation from anyone other than Brewers’ fans.

The New York Yankees led the American League Wild Card race by five games over Seattle as of the Major League Baseball All-Star Break. They could very well finish the season 10 games better than both the Mariners and the winner of the AL Central Division, and will still have to win a one-game playoff just to earn the right to play the best team in the American League, who will likely be from their own division.

I’m not one to make excuses for the Yankees. As a Minnesota Twins fan, I despise the Yankees more than most, and I’m a huge fan of the one-game playoff. But there’s nothing fair about a team’s postseason chances coming down to one game when that team has played a tougher schedule to a better record than all but one team in the league. It’s time for MLB to do away with divisions and go back to a division-less pennant race.

While Rob Manfred was repeatedly putting his foot in his mouth prior to the MLB All-Star Game, blaming the Los Angeles Angels and Mike Trout for not marketing Mike Trout, and calling for a discussion on ending defensive shifts, only the most interesting thing happening in baseball, he failed to address the most pressing issue facing the game. The one-game Wild Card could be played between the second- and fourth-ranked teams in the American League while the sixth-ranked team in the league gets a pass to the Divisional round simply for playing in a historically weak division. And that sixth-ranked team won’t even play the league’s best team.

Back in 1969, when East and West divisions were adopted by Major League Baseball, there were no Wild Card teams in the playoff format. And when just one team from both the American League and National League were awarded a postseason berth as a Wild Card for the first time in 1995 (the 1994 postseason was cancelled due to a player strike), there weren’t immediate issues.

But now that there are two Wild Card teams from each league reaching the postseason, either those teams need to play a three-game Wild Card series, or the league needs a good, old-fashioned pennant race. I’m for both.

I would recommend shortening the season to 154 games and adding a three-game Wild Card Playoff series to be played between the fourth- and fifth-ranked teams in each league, regardless of division standings. There is no need for a team to play the same four teams 19 times every year. I’d be fine with MLB divisions remaining simply for travel and rivalry reasons, but 17 games against division rivals is still probably too many. Commissioner Manfred should shorten the regular season to the original 154-game length while adding at least four and up to six lucrative playoff games to the schedule.

Since the All-Star Game no longer determines which league has home field advantage in the World Series, a good, old-fashioned pennant race is the most reasonable and fair way to determine who plays who in the playoffs. The top three seeds in each league would benefit from up to five days off entering the playoffs while the two Wild Card teams are decided, and each league’s top seed would play the fourth-best team instead of the second-best team that happened to lose its division despite winning more games than other division champions.

So before Manfred even considers changing rules to the game regarding defensive shifts and pace of play, he should make sure the league’s best teams are rewarded for being the league’s best teams. Even if the Yankees were to win the Wild Card Game, if the playoffs began today, they’d meet the Red Sox in the Divisional Series instead of the ALCS. And if 2004 taught us anything, it’s that baseball’s best rivalry should be decided in the ALCS. Most importantly though, the league’s best playoff team should play the league’s worst playoff team in the divisional round, and that’s not the case as the MLB postseason currently stands.

Friday, 20 July 2018 16:27

Televise federal trials? Of course!

Written by

With one recent Supreme Court Justice confirmed and another just appointed by President Trump, the issue of televising hearings before the nation’s highest court will surely be discussed. The Supremes have stood steadfastly against letting the public watch the cases argued before them, even though the court’s decisions can often have major implications for every American. The Constitution guarantees that trials are public and open to everyone.  And what could be more public than televising a criminal trial for the whole world to see?

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wrote recently that cameras should be taken out of the courtroom, particularly in high-profile trials.  She concludes: “Our mighty respect for the public’s right to know — has clouded our judgment. There may be no way to quantitatively prove that cameras influence courtroom behavior and, possibly, a trial’s outcome. But anyone who’s ever sat in front of a camera knows that it is so.”

I disagree with Ms. Parker.  The criminal justice system could use some help.  A majority of Americans feel that justice often doesn’t prevail.  A nationwide poll by the respected Rasmussen Reports found that 45% of Americans feel that the justice system is fair.  Only 34% felt that the system is unbiased to the poor.  That’s a lot of cynicism.  Maybe more public trials would help skeptics gain more confidence in a system where many feel over half the time that justice is not served.

America has a strong tradition of public trials. In early colonial America, courthouses were the centers of community life, and most citizens regularly attended criminal trials. In fact, trials frequently became community events. Citizens were knowledgeable about trials, and there was wide participation in the process — especially in rural America, where prosecutions were often scheduled on market day, when local farmers came to town for supplies.  Many courtrooms were built to accommodate 300 or more observers.

Back then, citizens closely observed the defendants, knew when judges issued ridiculous rulings, and saw firsthand whenever justice was perverted. Whatever happened, the citizens were there, watching.  The court system belonged to them. The televising of criminal trials would merely be an extension of this direct review by the average citizen.

Would televising criminal trials create a circus atmosphere?  There’s no reason to think that they would. In fact, many of our most sacred ceremonies, including church services and inaugurations, are televised without dignity being lost.  Judge Burton Katz said it well:  “We should bring pressure to bear on all judges to open up their courtrooms to public scrutiny.  Members of the judiciary enjoy great entitlements and wield enormous power. They bear close watching by an informed public. I guarantee that the public would be amazed at what goes on in some courtrooms.”

Back in 1997 when I was a practicing attorney in Louisiana, I participated in the state’s first televised trial before the Louisiana Supreme Court.  A state senator was opposing my authority to impound the automobiles of uninsured drivers. I was the elected state Insurance Commissioner at the time, and represented the state in our effort to uphold the impoundment law. The issue was important to the vast majority of Louisianans, and they were entitled to hear the arguments, and watch the trial in progress.  No one pandered to the cameras, and the entire courtroom procedure was straightforward and dignified.  The proceedings were televised without a hitch.

Harvard law professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz put it this way: “Live television coverage may magnify the faults in the legal system, and show it warts and all. But in a democracy the public has the right to see its institutions in operation, close-up.  Moreover, live television coverage generally brings out the best, not the worst in judges, lawyers and other participants.  The video camera helps to keep the system honest by keeping it open.”

America prides itself in being an open society that protects and encourages the public’s right to know.  Too often, courtrooms have become bastions of secrecy where the public has little understanding of how the system works and how verdicts are reached.

The video camera serves as a check and balance.  We can better keep the system honest by keeping it open and easily available to the public.  Time to turn on the cameras.

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

---

Jim Brown is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. His column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show, Common Sense, each Sunday morning from 9:00 am till 11:00 am Central Time on the Genesis Communication Network.

 

There’s no secret as to which companies sponsor which drivers in NASCAR. It’s advertised all over the cars and drivers. NASCAR drivers aren’t bashful when it comes to endorsing their sponsors either, and race fans can easily see the companies that support them. Politicians should be no different. In fact, they should be just as eager to do so at the podium as NASCAR drivers are on victory lane. They should wear the logos of their campaign contributors with pride, stitched into their thousand-dollar suits, and they should proudly thank every one of them in their victory and concession speeches. Like NASCAR drivers, politicians wouldn’t be where they are without their campaign contributors. That’s why I’m proposing the Non-individual And Super-PAC Contributions Advertising Requirement, or N.A.S.C.A.R. Act, to end all that secrecy, and force politicians to reveal who paid for their campaign.


This was originally published at Grandstand Central.


Much has been made of the need for transparency with regards to campaign contributions in American elections, but not much has been done. Sure, there are organizations and journalists reporting from where the “dark money” comes, but few media outlets are reporting those stories and even fewer voters are reading or watching them when they are reported. The result is a record-number of Americans — 36 percent, according to an October 2017 poll by the General Social Survey — being ashamed of the way democracy works in America.

Even if you wanted to know who gave what to whom, the research is time-consuming, relatively un-revealing and you have to trust the number-crunchers and fact-checkers did their jobs. But you still couldn’t determine the amount a super PAC spent on a television advertisement in support of a politician’s specific agenda item like abortion. We’re lucky to have projects like OpenSecrets to reveal campaign contributors to the Americans who discover and believe their research to be accurate, but the American people shouldn’t have to search for that information because major campaign contributors shouldn’t be secrets.

Americans need to see who (and it is “who” since corporations are people by law) is most responsible for electing their elected officials, and the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act would require elected officials to display all non-individual campaign contributions on their person when in view of the public — whether that’s on television, in-person or even on vacation.

Since elected officials are public figures and celebrities of sorts, they are always representative of their office, regardless of whether they’re on the clock or not. When a politician commits sexual assault, he or she doesn’t get a pass because it happened outside the office or during off-duty hours. This form of public shaming would make elected officials think twice about taking money from just anyone or any one organization, and it would make corporations consider the consequences of supporting specific candidates, solving some of America’s campaign finance fiasco.

A majority of Americans support campaign finance reform, according to an August 2017 Ipsos Poll on behalf of the Center for Public Integrity, and almost half of those polled opposed the Citizens United decision that made corporations people and money free speech. “Given the chance to change the campaign finance system, a majority of Americans (57%) would place limits on the amount of money super PACs can raise and spend.” But there already are limits on the amount of money PACs can raise and spend, and super PACs are simply a means for wealthy individuals to give candidates more than the $2,700 limit per election without violating federal law.

PAC stands for Political Action Committee, and it’s how corporations and nonprofit organizations, including churches, funnel millions of dollars into elections without directly contributing to candidates’ campaigns, which would violate federal law. While super PACs cannot contribute directly to a politician’s campaign, they can produce commercials and advertising in support of a particular politician’s platform or agenda, or more commonly, against the platform or agenda of a particular politician’s opponent.

PACs, on the other hand, can contribute directly to politicians’ campaigns, and while that amount is limited, it’s still a means for corporations to buy elections. More than 39 percent of House Democrats’ 2018 election funding came from PACs, 43 percent of House Republicans’ funding came from PACs and more than 32 percent of Senate Republicans’ funding came from PACs.

Toyota, a Japanese company, used its PAC to spend nearly half a million dollars supporting 36 Senate candidates and 155 House representatives in the 2018 federal elections. So are those 191 elected officials inclined to represent the interests of the constituents who made individual donations, or the constituents who voted for them, or do their jobs quite literally depend on them doing as Toyota and their other corporate donors demand?

While the total of individual campaign contributions was more than the total of PAC contributions in the 2018 federal elections, the majority of those individual campaign contributions were made by businessmen and businesswomen on behalf of their respective businesses.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager, was the biggest campaign contributor in 2018, supporting Democrats with nearly $30 million. Second in campaign contributions was Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, of U-Line, Inc. They supported Republicans with nearly $27 million. The only actual individual on the list who’s not a representative of a business is Deborah Simon, who is described as a “philanthropist” and made nearly $4.5 million in contributions to Democrats.

The premise of the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act is simple: any campaign contribution to a candidate through a PAC, or any super PAC contribution from which the candidate clearly benefits must be revealed by the candidate, with the largest contributions being most visible on their person when in view of the public.

Instead of Robert Mercer being able to hide his hedge fund firm behind his super PAC supporting Donald Trump, Trump would be required to wear a Renaissance Technologies logo on his chest or higher (so television cameras pick it up) in a size proportional to the $13.5 million in contributions he received from Mercer when compared to the candidate’s total campaign contributions. Whether that would keep Mercer from contributing in the future depends on what he thinks Trump’s actions will cost him and his company by “sponsoring” the candidate. So both the sponsor and the “driver” have to consider the risk their political-business relationship could have on the politician’s ability to keep his job and the sponsor’s ability to sell its product or service.

The same goes for Sheldon and Miriam Adelson of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, who contributed $10 million to Trump’s campaign. Linda McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment contributed $6 million. Co-founder and former CEO of Home Depot, Bernard Marcus, contributed $7 million, and even though he’s retired, Home Depot would still be advertised on Trump’s person given Marcus’s 3.8-percent ownership stake in the company.

Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, who apologized for comparing NFL players to inmates when discussing the anthem protests with owners and then only regretted the apology because he wasn’t referring to players but NFL office executives, gave $2 million to a pro-Trump super PAC. So the Texans logo would be affixed to Trump’s suit jackets under the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act. He wasn’t the only NFL owner who contributed to Trump either. He and seven other owners donated $7.25 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, but those donations aren’t campaign contributions and wouldn’t apply under the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act.

I have shared this bill, the full text of which you can find below, with multiple Congresspeople and have received no responses. But Harvard Law Professor and author of Republic, Lost, Lawrence Lessig, was most gracious and thanked me for my work “for a functioning republic.”

“I’m afraid I don’t think this brilliant hack would be upheld under the 1st amendment, but maybe,” he told Grandstand Central via email on Wednesday. “But more fundamentally, I think our energy has got to be focused on changing the system, not shaming people who live under the current system. There’s no clean private money way to run for Congress or other lower offices. That means we need to change the money.”

So while it’s unlikely the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act reaches the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives, and even more unlikely it be passed and signed into law, it’s a solution politicians should consider exploiting. Even without the law in place, politicians can commit to the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act as a means of expressing their campaign contribution cleanliness.

Politicians shouldn’t need the N.A.S.C.A.R. Act to become law in order to abide by it. If politicians have their constituents’ interests in mind, they would reveal their non-individual, super PAC and PAC contributors without being required to do so by law.

I am a firm believer, along with Lessig, that very little can change in America until campaign finance changes. The N.A.S.C.A.R. Act doesn’t stop corporations and billionaires from buying elections, but it would reveal to the American public who bought the elections. It’s not victory lane, but it’s at least a fast start from the pole position. America just needs one driver to put on that suit jacket littered with logos and lead the rest of the honest drivers who are proud of their sponsors but know it’s all about the fans in the stands.


The Non-individual And Super-PAC Contributions Advertising Requirement, or N.A.S.C.A.R. Act
A politician’s non-individual, PAC, and super PAC campaign contributions must be visible on his or her person while in view of the public.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT:

SECTION 1. Every elected official in service of the United States of America make every non-individual campaign contribution from which they benefited in the previous election or stand to benefit since, visible on his or her person at all times while in view of the public, and proportional in size to indicate the percentage of total campaign contributions for the election cycle. Violators will subject themselves to recall elections if so petitioned by their constituents.

SECTION 2. A non-individual, campaign contribution is either a contribution not from an individual or contributions by an individual in an amount exceeding the $2,700 individual limit per election. This includes donations from political action committees (PACs) and super PACs.

SECTION 3. Campaign contributions made by PACs formed by heads of corporations, LLCs, or nonprofit organizations will be represented on the politician’s person by the logo of the corporation, LLC, or nonprofit organization responsible for the formation of the PAC. The PAC founder need not be an employee of the corporation, LLC, or nonprofit organization, but must simply stand to benefit from the corporation’s, LLC’s, or nonprofit organization’s success resulting from poltical influence.

SECTION 4. The Federal Election Commission will oversee the enforcement of the bill along with the specific enforcement mechanism.

SECTION 5. This law will take effect two weeks after its passage to allow politicians ample time to properly display their non-individual, campaign contributors.

SECTION 6. All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.

Introduced for Congressional Debate by ______.

"Philosophy is common sense with big words." President James Madison 

 

In this age, there have risen up in America, men who speak perverse things. There are many that trouble us with their philosophies and novel interpretations, by which they deny the doctrines they profess to teach and undermine the faith and purpose they are pledged to maintain.

It is well that some of us, who know what we believe and have no secret meanings for our words, should just put our foot down and maintain our standing, holding forth the word of life, and plainly declare the foundational truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (Philippians 2:16-18).

Let me give you a parable given by Charles Spurgeon.

In the days of Nero, there was great shortness of food in the city of Rome, although there was an abundance of corn to be purchased at Alexandria. A certain man who owned a vessel went down to the seacoast, and there he noticed many hungry people straining their eyes toward the sea, watching for the vessels that were to come from Egypt with corn. When these vessels came to the shore, one by one, the poor people wrung their hands in bitter disappointment, for on board the galleys there was nothing but sand which the tyrant emperor had compelled them to bring for use in the arena. It was infamous cruelty when men were dying of hunger to command trading vessels to go to and fro, and bring nothing else but sand for gladiatorial shows, when wheat was so greatly needed. Then the merchant whose vessel was moored by the quay said to his shipmaster, "Take thou good heed that thou bring nothing back with thee from Alexandria but corn; and whereas, aforetime thou hast brought in the vessel a measure or two of sand, bring thou not so much as would lie upon a penny this time. Bring thou nothing else, I say, but wheat: for these people are dying, and now we must keep our vessels for this one business of bringing food for them." Alas! I have seen certain mighty galleys of late loaded with nothing but mere sand of philosophy and speculation, and I have said within myself, "Nay, but I will bear nothing in my ship but the revealed truth of God, the bread of life so greatly needed by the people."

Bringing it to the present, I have noticed in recent years that we have some men on the scene who claim to give the answers to America’s godless issues without making reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that brings about the resolve to the issues (Deuteronomy 4).  That is like asking the fallen sinner (without Grace) to instruct and educate the people in righteousness. How that works I don't know.  Yet, as long as the American people have teachers to tickle their itching ears, I guess that the resolve to the lawless issues matters not to many in our country (2 Timothy 4:3-4).  How foolish. Let me describe a few...

In America today we have a very popular Jewish man who loves to debate and play the answer man to college students across the country.  He is a man championed by the conservatives (yesterday’s liberals) of the day with a mouth that spills out vulgarities (James 1:26; Ephesians 4:29).  I ask, what is the lesson that he wants listeners to learn? This guy does a great job of tearing down misconceptions and propaganda in one part while propping up immorality in another (Galatians 5:9).

This guy wears a Kippah (skull cap) while "educating" Americans on conservatism, and all the while denying the deity of Christ. This is like the scientist discovering God's Creation, and then denying the Creator and taking praise unto one’s self as a teacher that need educate the creation.

CONSERVATIVE, adjective, Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

Jesus said, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men" (Matthew 5:13).

Salt is a preservative to stop putrification.

The meaning of Christ's words is that the salt represents those of great worth and reliability in the honoring of God's Word without compromise.

It seems almost inevitable, as a law of nature, that a man who is not sound in his life cannot be sound in his judgment. Yet, the people in America put this "conservative" speaker as so. Wisdom will not long hold a seat in the head of that man who has yielded up his heart to folly. A pure theology and a loose morality will never blend.

Then, we have another man who wears sunglasses and dressed up like he is from the 1990s. During his question and answer session to college students, he acts out as if he is some sort of pop culture star when, in fact, he is a full-fledged sodomite (even defending pedophilia) with a whore’s forehead claiming to speak on the behalf of those who call themselves conservatives. He advocates that which God condemns and yet, people act out as if it is wisdom on our part to follow the blind and rebellious. I say that if the ditch is the place where you want to end up, then keep listening, keep following the blind.

The list goes on…

We have a couple more that claim to be preachers who use innuendo and filth every step of the way. It's not a good position to put themselves in (Exodus 20:7) What Bible are these reprobates reading?
Ezekiel 22:26

Today's Tea Party favorites across the country claim to be some sort of standard among Americans and behind closed doors I have seen are godless, adultery committing drinking hypocrites (1 Corinthians 6:9).

Or how about them favorites on the radio or television that have sold their souls to the golden calves of the day (sponsor's) who are just UNWILLING to say and do what needs to be said and done. Matthew 23:3. This is why Americans are losing ground year after year, and why it is their backs are up against the wall. Shameful.

These are also the same people giving you the same talking points given to them by the CIA controlled media. Dividing Americans one against another, the left vs the right, the Democrats vs the Republicans, socialists vs the conservatives etc.. Mark 3:25

Remember, Jesus said "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matthew 15:14).

When know that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 So as Americans we need get back to the Book (the Bible) that will point the way to victory that God promises, yet on His term, not on ours. 2 Corinthians 3:17

Many of these men are, without a doubt, very intellectual and at the same time very carnal.  Let me remind you that God speaks to the heart and not the head.  Furthermore, it is simplicity that is in Christ.  A child is the model of Heaven (Matthew 18:2-4), not some intellectual philosopher, which by the way in many instances is nothing more than a man giving forth big words with common sense meaning.

How many times these sort of men are found to be without understanding.  How could they when it goes no further than their heads and through their mouths? Titus 1:16  Why? Because they cannot quite explain what they do not understand from the heart.

Without the Spirit of God and the Sword of the Spirit (Hebrews 4:12), they are ministering from their own wicked hearts (Jeremiah 17:9), like fighting with a wooden blunt sword. If they preach not the Word of God in the power of the Holy Ghost, I am here to tell you that they are fools for their pains in the effort (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Don’t forget, friends, that you will never go beyond those who you allow to teach you. Know who you follow, know who you listen to and pay attention to those you allow to influence you. Ask yourself, what do those you follow stand for, and mark this, you will not go beyond those you allow to teach you. Christ is the Bread of Life (John 6:35), which feeds men’s souls, as well as sets men free.  That is, of course, if you follow Him and Him alone (John 8:36; John 14:6).

--

 

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This op-ed was originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

 

“If you want to change the future you are going to have to trouble the present.”-William Booth

Before I begin, I need to make clear that the best leaders are the best followers, and that of the Christ (John 14:6). With that said, isn't it funny how things work in this world, it seems like when you do the wrong thing before God and man, somehow people seem to give it a pass.  Yet, when you begin to do the right things and obey God and love man according to the Word of God, all of a sudden, the world acts like you're doing something wrong.

After I got saved, as they say (John 3:3), I remember my mother calling me up and saying, “The family wants to know what is wrong with you.”

"What’s wrong with me?" I laughingly replied.  I said, "Mom, when I was in the rock n roll world doing the things that I was doing, nobody said anything, and no one had a problem with what I was doing, that is until I started to emulate (obey) Jesus Christ" (1 John 2:6).

This reminds me of when I gave a prayer at the state capital in Minnesota. After the prayer was over, I had a minister come up to me and tell me that I could not be dropping the “J” (Jesus) word in the capital. I said that the reason I dropped the “J” word was because you haven’t in 40 years (Romans 1:16).

What of public high schools across the country that we have been going into in order to educate the youth as to who we are, and not what the revisionists and propagandists would have them believe that we are. We have shown the young people that abortion is murder and that 58 million babies have been murdered since 1973 under the guise of woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17).

We got kicked out of a public school for reinforcing America’s value’s by teaching the US Constitution.

We have taught that homosexuality is an abomination, and how it is a felony in every state in our union (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Jude 1:7).

How true Scripture is when it declares:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

No wonder why the reprobates and hypocrites thought that the Christians who were following the living Christ were turning the world upside down in the book of Acts.  They were, in fact, turning the world right side up (Acts 17:6).

Identifying the genuine from the counterfeit

Last week, I had a woman come up to me at my last meeting in Amery, Wisconsin. She said that she did her research on me and said that the media really attacked me. I responded with, "Of course they did, and of course they still do."  They are being exposed for who they are and they do not like it. (John 15:22).

I told her that there are too many counterfeits, self-proclaimed leaders, out there who care more about saving face, than they do the souls of men (Luke 19:10), as well as saving their country. Apparently they have a reputation to keep up. Philippians 2:7-9 

These are those that sit behind the status of some sort of church or political leader of the pack.  Yet, you do not see any warfare or opposition around them and why? because they have simply forsaken the cross. There is no absolutes with these people. They are people pleasers and nothing more. After all you can always tell what a man stands for by the enemies that he has.

They hide behind a microphone day after day.  Yet, they fail to confront the issues that needed to be confronted. The reason they don't is because they are guilty of what they fail to confront!

They are paper tigers.  They can write all big and bad but when it comes to what someone else should do.  However, when it is time for them to put boots on the ground, they are simply missing in action (MIA). These are willing to live in the freest country in the world as long as it is not them that have to sacrifice to maintain it.

There is also a group of people out there that have to be friends with everyone (and have to apologize to any that they may have told the truth lest they should convict them unto godly repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10) as they congregate week after week deceiving themselves into believing that they are demanding a lawful change just as long as it does not offend anyone (Matthew 5:10).

As a matter of fact, these counterfeits will be the first ones to get angry with and denounce and attack the ones that are sent by the Spirit of God (Galatians 4:29).

Maybe this group of people should ask their enemies for instructions as to how change is brought about, and in a righteous sense reverse the lawlessness-taking place in this country (Matthew 24:12).

These groups of people are simply enemies of the cross of Christ and know not the power of God unto salvation (Philippians 3:18).

Furthermore, I said to this woman that this is how you can tell who the genuine Christians are that are in the fight and those who are counterfeits.

When the church and the world can jog comfortably along together, you can be sure something is wrong. The world has not compromised—its spirit is exactly the same as it ever was. If Christians were equally as faithful to the Lord, separated from the world (2 Corinthians 6:17), and living so that their lives were a reproof to all ungodliness, the world would hate them as much as it ever did. (John 7:7) It is the church that has compromised, not the world. – Catherine Booth

The way to gauge those who are actually taking ground for the kingdom is to see who is in the midst of a continuous warfare (always in trouble, slandered, lied about, defamed etc) fighting the good fight of faith because they trust in the living God (Matthew 11:12; 1 Timothy 6:12).

John Calvin said, “Whomsoever the Lord has adopted and deemed worthy of His fellowship ought to prepare themselves for a hard, toilsome and unquiet life, crammed with very many and various kinds of evil.” And of course to the counterfeit's this is foreign.

--

 

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This op-ed was originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

 

Friday, 29 June 2018 17:08

Why politicians think they are above the law

Written by

“No man is above the Law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. –President Theodore Roosevelt

If there is one thing that bothers me is when a politician, who is guilty of committing a crime, is caught up and exposed in some sort of scandal, that the American people throw out justice because of their lack of understanding of what the law states in our US Constitution. They then fall in line with the propaganda the CIA-controlled media puts out that corrupt politicians are somehow above the very laws that they have sworn to uphold. This is why they believe, as a demigod would, that they are above the law (Isaiah 14:12-15).

The preamble to the United States Constitution states,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…"

And yet, when a criminal politician is found out Americans are taught to say that he or she should just simply resign. That is like a career criminal being found out by the police and instead of prosecuting him they simply ask him to resign. Friends, this only adds insult to injury to the laws in which they are to uphold. Because it gives permission to them to live above the law, making the Law their servant rather than their master. This is completely unjust and backward (Isaiah 59:14).

Americans have also taken on that if a politician violates the law, even the smallest of infractions, that there is nothing that they can do until his tenure is up. That is like the police waiting for the criminal to finish the job before incarcerating him. This is completely and utterly false (Hosea 4:6).

Like President Roosevelt stated, “No man is above the Law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it."

The US Constitution states in Article 2, Section 4:

Disqualification. 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.

When a new Representative is elected to office, he or she takes an oath that lists many responsibilities. Abuse of power or failure to uphold these responsibilities cannot be tolerated.

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the God-given right to impeach the offender.

Impeachment means that a charge of misconduct (1 John 3:4) is filed against the offender. A majority of the members of the House must vote for these charges in order to impeach the offender.

After the charges of misconduct are filed, the Senate has the power to try impeachment cases like a court. Two-thirds of the senators must vote for conviction. The offender may be removed from office and never allowed to hold a government position again if he is found guilty.

Process of Impeachment       

  1. Impeachment

    1. Being formally accused of unlawful activity, committing a crime

    2. Not necessarily being kicked out of office    

  2. Who can be Impeached? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution

    1. “President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States”         

    2. Civil Officers include people appointed by the President (cabinet members and judges)

    3. Members of Congress are NOT civil officers 

  3. Process of Impeachment 

    1. Justice Department or an independent council investigates charges & presents them to the House Judiciary Committee 

    2. House Judiciary Committee (HJC) reviews evidence 

    3. HJC drafts Articles of Impeachment 

    4. HJC debates Articles of Impeachment (Nixon) 

    5. Entire House of Representatives debates Articles of Impeachment & votes on them (Simple Majority)

    6. If this happens, President is considered impeached.

    7. Senate holds the Trial "Will the official be kicked out of office"

    8. House Judiciary Committee acts as the prosecution-- presents evidence against the accused

    9. Accused chooses own lawyers to present defense

    10. Chief Justice of Supreme Court acts as Judge and rules on admissibility of evidence

    11. Senate acts as the Jury

    12. A 2/3 majority of the Senate must vote against accused to remove the person from office.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson occurred in 1868, when the United States House of Representatives resolved to impeach President Andrew Johnson, adopting eleven articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdemeanors," in accordance with Article Two of the United States Constitution. The House's primary charge against Johnson was violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in March 1867, over the president's veto. Specifically, he had removed from office Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War—whom the Act was largely designed to protect—and attempted to replace him with Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas (Earlier, while Congress was not in session, Johnson had suspended Stanton and appointed General Ulysses S. Grant as secretary of war ad interim).

President Richard Nixon resigned from office rather than face impeachment charges in the Watergate scandal in 1974 (Pedophile ring).

President Bill Clinton became the second president to be impeached by the House in 1998. Later, the Senate found him not guilty (China Gate).

That is NOT ALL

After the impeachment process is complete, then comes in prosecution, not a resignation only to encourage the next politician to commit the same crimes. (Proverbs 16:6) Prosecution for the laws that they have transgressed!

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.  -ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7 

--

 

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This op-ed was originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

 

Page 1 of 2