Sixth Amendment?

I’ve taken a little look at the sixth amendment.  As near as I can tell, the right to face your accuser only applies for defendants in criminal court.  That means that the worst killer or rapist has the right to face his accuser.  This includes victims as well as any witness.

There are three reasons for this.  First, it is a verification that the witness exists.  Without the sixth amendment, the prosecution can just make up the witness and claim he is real.

Second, the accused is able to question the witness.  Believe it or not, some witnesses do lie.  When the witness is put on the witness chair under oath, it gives the accused the ability to challenge the witness’s testimony.  Strange as it seems, some witnesses don’t tell the truth.  Sometimes they intentionally lie, even under oath.

Third, it gives the accused a chance to uncover motives.  For instance, if the witness stands to gain a few million dollars by giving false witness, it might be a good thing for the jurors to consider during deliberations.

Unfortunately, President Trump does not have this right.  He is not being tried in a criminal court.  He is being railroaded by a bunch of dummycrats that hate him.  Instead of a jury, if impeached, he will be judged by senators.  There is no doubt in my mind that he will not be found guilty.

However, the false charges brought by the false witnesses are also being displayed (very selectively) before the public.  Even if there is no impeachment, the falsities remain and the president never gets a chance to challenge any of it.

Hence, he is not even being treated as well as a serial killer.

May I remind you, we don’t even know if these whistleblowers exist?  Assuming he does, we don’t know his motives.  Finally, there is no opportunity for the president’s lawyers to challenge the accuracy of what they say.

Is this really the way to run an impeachment?  I am sure that if our forefathers considered such a thing, they likely would have written the sixth amendment a little differently.

Then again, they likely never considered the likes of the dummycrats.

Deceit and Lies About Deceit

Some time ago, Rep. Shiff lied by saying he had positive proof of collusion between President Trump and the Russians.  Now we know better.  If he had the proof, as much as he hates Pres. Trump, he would have produced it.  Instead, he says nothing more about it and hopes we will forget about it.

Then, a short while ago, he attempts to make us believe a supposed conversation President Trump had with the president of Ukraine.  It might be laughable but for two things.  First, there are millions of people that believed his deceit and continue to believe him to this day.  After all, he never made an apology and there are those that continue to quote the lier rather the real wors of the president.  Intentionally, he and his conspirators permit the deceit to live on.

Second, The Speaker of the House endorsed the lie.  Staightfaced, she said it was the truth.  (It wasn’t even a believable lie.)

Finally, Rep. Shiff lied about having talked to the so-called wistleblower.  This prompted four Panochios from even the liberal media.

Were there any corrections issued by Shiff or Pelosi?  Were there any apologies from either of them or any of those in the media who were in cahoots with them.

Then what did Shiff, the lier say when he was confronted?  He tells another lie, of course.  What else would you expect?

It is why I call them dummycrats.  It would seem they don’t know how to tell the truth, not even when they are confronted.

Definition of a Milli-second

Some time ago, I had a laugh when I heard a definition for the millisecond as the time between when the traficlight turns green and the when the person in the car behind you honks his horn.  I suppose this is still true but we need to add another entry that just might be a little more accurate.  I have observed that it is now about the time between when someone goes on a shooting rampage and the time the dummycrats call for gun laws. (You might notice I waited a while before I wrote anything on the subject.  I actually have some respect for the survivors of those who were killed and those who were wounded.)

I find this very disrectful.  Then again, why should I expect the dummycrats to be respectful. That would require some intellegence.

It is just another reason I call them dummycrats.  None of the laws they suggest would have stopped any of the shootings.  I might add that one man in California killed two men with a knife.  Moreover, he took a gun from one of those he stabbed.  No gun law would have stopped those killings.  Moreover, had he not been stopped, he could have used the stolen gun to kill many more.

By the way, lest anyone forget, one of the most successful mass killers in this country used a truck full of fertilizer.  Two terrorists used pressure cookers and likely leaned the method on the web.

When I was in the Marines, I carried an M16 rifle, the military version of the AR15.  I suppose you might call the M16 an assault weapon, but it is capable of both semi and fully automatic.  An AR15 is not an assault rifle.  It only looks like one.  It is strictly semi-automatic.  There are many other rifles that fire semi-automatic.

The truth of the matter is, all known; the dummycrats simply want to rid the country of guns.  They don’t like the second amendment.  Actually, they don’t much like any of The Constitution.  It is why they keep trying to alter it or ignore it.  Oddly, they even use it to destroy it.  The truth is socialism is not compatible with The Constitution.  It is why the dummycrats keep trying to do away with it.

Let’s take the example of the First Amendment.  This is where you can say what you want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their ideas.

Now I have one more definition for you: Racist.  This is when someone does or says something the dummycrats (specifically the squad) don’t like.  The label is applied automatically, sort of, like when a knee jerks when a doctor applies his little mallet to it.  By the way, using the term requires about the same amount of intelligence as the doctor’s mallet.  About the same intelligence of the dummycrat.

Who’s the Racist?

President Trump has said nothing racist.  He has done nothing racist.  On the contrary, he has done very much to help the African-Americans and the Hispanics.

On the other hand, all those of the squad all expect special treatment because they are racist.  It is casual to the most obvious observer.  Every time someone says anything about them, they yell racism.  It is a reflex and said without giving it any thought.

Not only are they racist, but they are also dumb.  It’s why all call them dummycrats.

Removing All Doubt

Again the old saying is proven true.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opened her mouth and proved herself beyond all doubt that she is really dumb.  Not only is Nancy Pelosi not a racist, but she has used the label on others likely before AOC was old enough to realize it.  It goes to prove that she completely deserves the label of dummycrat.

To be sure, I am somewhat glad that AOC called Pelosi a racist.  It will give Pelosi firsthand knowledge of what it is like to be wrongfully plastered with the label.  Maybe Nancy will be a little more careful about improperly using the label.  However, I’m not holding out much hope on that.  According to the woman, all Republicans deserve the label, especially when they are African-American.

Aiding and Abetting

The dummycrats are guilty of aiding and abetting of the enemy, the Russians, Chinese, Iran and North Korea.  Every time they encourage the enemy, they aid them.  Every time they try to undercut the efforts of President Trump, they abet the enemy.  They are saying, “All you have to do is wait until the dummycrats get in office, things will turn to the way they were.”

Every time the dummycrats and fake news impede the building of the wall, Every time they refuse to alter the law to decrease illegal aliens, every time they aid those who are here illegally, they are aiding and abetting the cartel; they are encouraging gang members who illegally cross the borders and remain here.

Every time that someone dies from an overdose, they have contributed to their death.  Every time a woman is raped by an illegal alien, they are guilty of helping them.  And, by the way, they have helped some who have not yet arrived.  Some of the rapists are guilty before they reach the border.

Do the dummycrats or reporters feel any remorse.  No!  Most likely, the dummycrats are not capable of such a thing.  I mean, feeling guilt?  It seems to be a foreign concept to them.  As far as they are concerned, they would have to admit they are doing something wrong.  The truth is that anything that furthers their goals is a good thing, no matter who gets hurt.

All the above hardly surprises me.  After all, it is all in their guidebook, the  Communist Manifesto.  The part that really bothers me is that there are Republicans in cahoots with them too.  Nearly half of those who call themselves republicans are just as guilty and it doesn’t seem to bother them either.  Indeed, they seem to be proud of it.

Go figure?

Just remember, it’s not really about communism or socialism.  It is about power.  They want one world government and they want to be in control of it.  Nothing else matters.  World dominance was the dream of virtually every dictator since the beginning of history.

They love to belittle the memory of George Washington.  It would do them much good to remember that when George was offered the throne, he quickly turned it down.  Very few in his position would have.  It was likely the first step into the best and greatest government this world has ever seen.  Invariably, those who successfully lead a revolution become the leader of the new government.  Washington only accepted the office presidency after the forming of the government.  Even then, he insisted on stepping down after two terms.  It’s likely something Roosevelt should have learned from.

BUILD THE WALL!!!

Decrease the Costs of Healthcare

If you really want to cut the cost of healthcare, one way you can go about it is to keep the lawyers out of it.  Doctors have to pay a great deal for malpractice insurance.  Let me restate that.  We who visit doctors pay a great deal for malpractice insurance.  It is a cost of business for doctors and we pay every bit of that cost.

Well, that is not totally true.  Most of us don’t pay the doctor.  We pay insurance companies and the insurance companies pay the doctor.  Regardless of how many hands it goes through, it is our dime that pays for that doctor to keep his practice.  Even if the cost is paid by an employer, it is part of our pay package.  In a way, when the payment is made through other means, it is worse.  By isolating us from the knowledge of the cost, we remain ignorant of just how much is paid for that visit to the doctor because we have sniffles.

It wouldn’t be so bad, but in most malpractice lawsuits, the doctor is not even at fault.  However, the insurance company usually settles to avoid paying legal fees as well as the off chance that the jury improperly awards the case to the plaintiff.  Let us face it.  Paying ten-thousand for sure appears better than possibly paying ten-million.  So the lawyer gets forty percent of ten-thousand, four thousand for simply threatening to sue.

When it happens in small numbers, it isn’t any big thing.  However, there are lawyers that make their fortunes making such lawsuits, even though they know that they would lose the suit should it go to trial.  So you and I pay no-good-bums to sue good doctors without good cause.

If the lawsuits were not permitted, thousands of lawyers would have to find another line of work and the price of healthcare would plummet.

Unfortunately, that is not all of it.  Everyone knows about defensive medicine.  There are many doctors that order tests that serve no purpose other than to keep out of court.

Then there are the medicines.  A pharmacology company spends money and years to come up with a new drug that serves a very important purpose.  Then, after all the testing and all, they finally release the drug so that they can start realizing a profit.  Then, one week later, some lawyer takes the company to court in hopes of getting a big settlement out of it.

It happens all the time.  One day I hear of a new drug that really helps and within a week, the advertisement comes on TV, “If you took (whatever the drug is) and suffered (whatever the problem is) then contact (whoever the lawyer is) and we will make you a millionaire.  (And, by the way, we will become a billionaire.  And, by the way, we will drive the cost of meds up roughly thirty to forty percent.)

Lest you get the wrong idea, I am not advocating completely taking the lawyers out of medicine.  It would be a horrible idea.  However, we really need to take a long hard look at our tort system.  Indeed, it would be a good idea to look at it in general, not just the world of medicine.  Everything we buy includes legal fees.  Worse, there are some products that never make it to the market because of lawyers.

My suggestion is that the lawyers should be held to a higher standard.  I don’t know how it would be, but lawyers who do such things should have their licenses pulled and they should be fined.  If we could figure out a way to do it, the cost of medicine, as well as other things, would immediately drop.  Not only that; I wouldn’t have to listen to those ridiculous commercials.  TV and radio would have to find a replacement for their programming.

Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope for anything to be done.  The lawyers make the laws.  They benefit from them.  I doubt that they will do anything that will decrease their fortunes.