The Reasonable Person Rule…Can it Apply to a Person’s Recollection? Congressional Activity?

The Reasonable Person Rule is used as a tool in legal proceedings.  The rule can establish standards and interpretation of an individual’s version of a specific action.  As I researched some actual cases that included the use of the rule, I found it to be  commonly used in cases that involve the accusation of negligence.  I copied the following from Wikipedia.  Other groups explanations and descriptions are too complicated for my simple mind.

In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical person of legal fiction who is ultimately an anthropomorphic representation of the body care standards crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.
Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. This person’s character and care conduct under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy—or “learned” permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by high courts.

Why couldn’t we apply this rule to a litany of issues and stories in our world today?

Roy Moore maintains that he did not have an inappropriate relationship with any girl or young lady at anytime in his past.  With 6 woman accusing him of the doing so, as well as the number of people who vouch for them, wouldn’t a reasonable person be led to believe that at least one of the accusers claims are credible?

Today, the Republican party in all three branches are using their majority status to introduce a tax bill that most likely doesn’t favor the average American.  Since they are trying to proceed by taking their versions for a vote without any input from the Democrats or the American people, wouldn’t a reasonable person be lead to believe that they fear the bill would never be signed into law if they were to follow the established process?  Couldn’t the same be applied to healthcare repeal?

Is it also possible for a reasonable person to believe that the Democrats may not have a viable alternative for tax reform?

In the case of healthcare, wouldn’t  a reasonable person support the legislative efforts of Patty Murray a democrat and Lamar Alexander, a republican, relative to their bi-partisan pursuit of a plan that does not include the financial suffering and exclusion in the bills that their individual parties are trying to peddle?

With regard to the Russian investigation, wouldn’t a reasonable person be compelled to believe that based on all of the information in the media plus the obvious deception and deflection, there has to be some truth to theory that the Trump administration was involved?

In the case of the testimony from people like Jeff Sessions, wouldn’t a reasonable person believe that by them saying that they didn’t recall to every specific and important question they are actually showing a deliberate effort to lie or deceive?

thinkingman_400x400

You get the idea.  If you look at relatively recent history, there are examples of similar situations that have played out by the accused eventually coming clean and accepting responsibility.  David Letterman, for examplewas accused of having sexual relationships with coworkers and colleagues.  He eventually admitted his wrong, apologized and asked for forgiveness.  His viewers accepted his discretions at face value and moved on.  If I didn’t bring it up, how many people would even remember him for what happened?  The same goes for Bill Clinton’s escapades and Rush Limbaugh’s pain killer addiction.

It may be a stretch, but it did get me thinking.

Advertisements

Department of Energy in the Trump Era. The Destruction of an Institution

The department of Energy was created in 1977 by Jimmy Carter to consolidate the nuclear regulatory commission and the energy research and development commission.

According to the DOE website, the department’s current mission is or is supposed to be “to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.”

The last person to serve as Secretary was Ernest Moniz who was a nuclear physicist.  He is keenly expert in all things nuclear as well as all things related to renewable energy and their effects on our environment.  He served as Secretary from 2013-2017 until President Trump took over the Administration.  While he served, most American’s had no reason to believe that our country’s nuclear and energy programs were being overseen by someone who didn’t know what they were doing.

Up until this year, the DOE was very active in promoting and creating programs related to the development of renewable energy sources.  The government had also made a commitment to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy including oil and gas.

Today under Trump, we have a Secretary of Energy in Rick Perry who has absolutely no knowledge of how the department works.  His expertise with regard to science consists of a general knowledge of the relationship between the magnetic strip on his debit card and the card reader in the ATM.  During  a debate in the last campaign, he expressed his plan to dismantle the DOE.  Honestly, I don’t think he knew what he was talking about. I think he was just trying to say something dramatic.

Sarcasm aside, we are in big trouble when it comes to the management and development of our nuclear weapons programs.  We all know that The Trump administration has made defense a priority.  The plan is to update our defense arsenal including our nuclear weapons programs.  How would you like to represent the military and have to partner up with this new Department of Energy in order to accomodate the President’s vision?

My worry is that the President has appointed Perry less for what he can contribute, but more on how and where he was placed in order to serve as a loyal subject of Trump.  To me he was placed into the position so that our President can dictate policy to him and the department.  Incidentally, Rick Perry said in an interview with the hill in January, he thought he was being appointed to a position in where he would be a United States Ambassador representing gas and oil interests abroad.  So, this is the guy who is responsible for among other things, our nuclear arsenal.

Unfortunatley, I think that there is a good chance we are going to be faced with a catastrophic event and we won’t be able to execute a competent response.

When it comes to energy and its role in climate change, our government has recently denounced the very existence of negative climate change caused by humans.

Basically, we are supposed to believe that the President possesses some insight that the scientists don’t have.  He has even said that climate change is a scam propagated by the Chinese.  Like a lapdog, Perry buys into what Trump says then makes serious consequential changes to the department, excluding any program that is reflective of climate change or the effects of green house gasses.

As it stands now, the government has Censured the department and it’s staff in order to change the various basic terminology that refers to climate change.  Here is how they are supposed to talk about this very serious global issue:

USDA’s advice to staff on climate change language
Avoid → use instead
Climate change → weather extremes
Climate change adaptation → resilience to weather extremes/intense weather events: drought, heavy rain, spring ponding
Reduce greenhouse gases → build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency
Sequester carbon → build soil organic matter

One important and consequential responsibility of the department is to oversee and execute the proper cleanup of our country’s nuclear waste.

Where I live in Washington state there are two nuclear power plants.  One was never completed and the other is mostly decommissioned.

As a result of the discovery of a collapsed tunnel in 2017, the government proclaimed that the Hanford Nuclear site was the worst ongoing environmental disaster in the country.  Since then, Secretary Perry visited the site representing the interests of the people effected by the contamination.  He said very little and although he acknowledged the problem and promised a remedy, he has of now done nothing significant to address the problem.  I really don’t think he knows what to do.

At the end of the day, I believe that the leadership of our defense groups can partner and ensure that the nuclear weapons are properly managed.  The scary part is that we  still have one person in our country who has the ability, without consultation of congress to use our nuclear weapons anytime he sees fit

The one thing we need to do is to start reinvesting our country’s resources and expertise back into alternative energy.  We need to reestablish our commitment to produce energy that won’t destroy the very atmosphere that mankind will require to survive.

If we can’t, we should do what Perry wants and dismantle the department.  Maybe the President could replace the Department of Energy by signing the department of fossil fuel act.  In this case, If nothing else, we can prepare for the future.

The established structure of the Department of Energy includes responsible management and logical oversight of the country’s energy needs.  This would include the important relationships that the federal government has with the individual states and municipalities.  Today, effectively, all of this out the window.  Hopefuly common sense and the real needs of the public will prevail in the not to distant future.

As with other cabinet departments like the Department of Education,  these inequities will sooner or later effect our daily lives.  In some ways the Russian scandal is providing cover.  I just wish that the media that spends so much time on other, albeit important issues sets aside some time and exposes the shortcomings of other parts of our government.

The following is the organizational chart for the department.  See if you can fill in the nameless boxes with a person’s name.

DOE-Org-Chart-September-2017_0

 

The Department of the Interior Public Land Management Inequities Oil, Gas and Mining

I have spent hours and days researching and educating myself on the workings of the US Department of the Interior.  My hope was that I could come up with information and facts that reflect the role and activities of our government’s management of public lands.  There is so much information out there from various groups that contradict each other depending on whether the individual group is pro economics or pro environment.  Basically I couldn’t root out any common ground.

As it turns out, the functions of the Department of the Interior (DOI) are extremely broad including departments that you wouldn’t expect.

The Department Of the Interior was established in 1849.  The cabinet level department was created in order to manage the US’s internal affairs.  This turned out to be the department that served as the catch all for the miscellaneous functions of government that did not have an established home.  Back then the key function of the department was the responsibility for everything from managing public lands, including financial agreements to the relationships between the government and native Americans.

As it is now there are numerous sub-organizations that fall under the umbrella of this bureaucratic system.  These sub-departments include Fish and Wildlife; Indian affairs; land and minerals; water and science and insular affairs (oversees US possessions).

Surprisingly, the Department of the Interior also governs the Inspector General, being a part of the Department of Justice that oversees among other things, government conduct and matters that effect the government’s exposure to legal peril.  The DOI also oversees the Solicitor General representing the government’s relationship with the Supreme Court.

For the purpose of my commentary, the following generally reflects my fairly simple understanding of this part of the government as well as some activity related to energy and the exploitation of public lands that many Americans may not be aware of.

To me, the DOI has a direct effect on some of the biggest issues that effect the management of the people’s properties with regard to programs such as the mineral leasing act.  There is little attention within public conversation and media to the various issues, yet the consequences will have a lasting effect on the land assets of this country far beyond our children and grand children.  For me, I think we should be aware of how our country is managing our resources and be allowed to decide what happens or doesn’t happen.  Even if it means balancing the effects of making money versus the compromise of assets owned by all of us.

First off, the People of this country own 650-700 million acres of land which includes land occupied by the military.  Twenty six percent of federally owned land is or can be used for oil, gas and mining interests.

The way it works is simple.  The corporations will lease or rent land from the government, obtain permits and have at it.  The country will then generate revenue from the rent plus royalties for every barrel of oil or ton of coal extracted.

The revenue is significant and comprises a good portion of our returns on domestic oil and gas production.  There are however, some big problems with this concept.  The President, the Secretary of the Interior and many in congress look at the fossil fuel business as an easy opportunity for increasing the general income of the country.  In light of this they are actively promoting expansion, reduction in some common sense regulations as well as opening up more public land for production by the big oil companies.

As I see it, here is the problem.  Oil and gas companies are afforded ginormous hand outs and financial considerations from our government.  Lease per acre rates are very low, taxes are next to nothing and most of the common sense regulations are being repealed.  DOI Secretary Zinke (who I think is kind of shifty) regularly announces the government’s intention to expand the amount of land we make available for these groups.  It kills me to discover that they even want to allow this industry into our national parks.

It is worth noting that it is the government’s plan to aggressively pursue domestic independence with regard to oil, gas and coal energy production has been a priority of many in government long before Trump was elected.  A significant benefit of energy independence is to effectively control production and supply in order to set prices.  The difference is the current administration is running in hypermode to help these private companies gain new opportunities.

In the past oil production and prices were for the most part set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).  Administered in large part by Saudi Arabia, this group is put together through agreements with oil producing countries in big part in order to standardize prices, efficiency as well as demand and production.

These days there are domestic indexes from domestic crude oil providers within the industry such as the West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude which are benchmarks in setting current and future crude oil prices in this country.  In vague terms, Wall Street regularly uses the prices of these indexes to tab crude oil rates including the investment in crude oil and commodity future contracts.  Less impactful, the OPEC basket is still used by some.

In the US, the oil and gas extraction on public lands provides a relatively small number of jobs compared to what the companies generate in revenue and profits.  On the flip side, current and  future jobs that the renewable resource industries will provide make the fossil fuel companies contributions seem less significant.

With regard to sustainable and renewable energy sources, a large percentage of the utilities, private power companies, auto makers and even individuals in this country are already accepting the future and investing in cheaper, renewable sources to provide their energy.  You don’t have to be an economist to see that the very near future of clean energy related jobs in this country will out grow fossil fuel employment through the development of alternate fuel technologies.  The truth is that coal is already a dying industry with exception to what they export.

The impact of the private development of public land has an immediate negative impact on the environment.  Renewable energy and hydro power have significantly less.  As a good example of the opposite, look at China who depends on coal for the majority of their power generation.  Google china pollution images to get an idea of the obvious effects of coal on their environment.

It is kind of baffling that even China along with almost every other country in this world participate in the climate change accord.  I guess we are much smarter and can do a better job on our own (sarc).

Since there is little requirement for land rehabilitation after processed locations are abandoned, we will have to live with the permanent impact of extracting fuel from the ground.  There is already major damage to the aquifers located in and around the crude oil deposits as well as damage to the important solid ground elements that support the control of events such as erosion and even earthquakes.  There is also the matter of the  impact of crude oil processing as a result of failed facilities and pipelines.  Some of the damage such as leaky pipes will have a lasting effect on our environment.  These events are far more frequent than you would think.

We all know that oil exploration and production on public lands has existed for decades.  To me it is the expansion and locations of these projects that we can control and insist that they are not in the public’s best interest.  Up until now the main controversy revolved around the expansion of oil exploration and increased production in Alaska.  That debate is still going strong.

Since the future of our power will be provided by green sources,  I don’t think we should be expanding and opening up more public land.  To me it would make sense for the future to not allow private oil companies to grow in these areas.  I believe I am not a hypocrite on these issues even though I supported and know that Obama passed a law that was immediately repealed by Trump that would have allowed solar and wind operations on public lands that would provide power to our military bases.

Unfortunatley, the current administration supports the across the board deregulation of many laws regarding fossil fuel extraction and even construction of things like pipelines. They are not willing to acknowledge or prioritize the risks that put our land or waterways in possible, sometimes probable peril.  This seems kind of hanky to me, even though I do recognize that these issues are more complicated than I have laid it out.

This whole subject on either side has a silver lining.  Very soon, Millennials will represent the values and priorities of our country.  Many of them see alternative energy as very important to our future including employment, even if the industry is not a specific part of the job that they work in.  If you think of how progressive this group is you will find that they typically don’t generally think of anything other than solar wind or water power to provide energy for this country.

Further to the climate change issues, they have been witness to crazy weather that has not happened in our lifetime but since this generation knows of nothing else, the continuing effect of climate change is an important and ongoing matter for the future of their planet.  Overall, the Millennials will soon carry the torch with regard to stewardship surrounding the future of our country including the environment, our financial health and our dominant standing around the world.

For me, our public land is our land, not Exxon-Mobil’s.  Our government needs to get it together or the generation who is growing up will do it for us.

Incidentally, a little off the subject, how come I never hear of people expressing a hmmm moment with regard to fact that the big energy companies make more profit from the proceeds of the gas they sell to us over what they ever contribute directly to our country’s economy through taxes or related support industries.  Think about it when you consider tax reform or our growing deficit or the price of gas.

I have inserted some data regarding the hierarchy of the Department of the Interior.  I think it is pretty interesting.  Also there are many more departments within government that are not running the way they should nor are they properly staffed in order to be efficient.  Since there is so much else going on in the world, we haven’t been keeping an eye on them.  So, more to come.

Department_of_interior

 

 

Education and Government

There are bloggers that who have posted fascinating pieces that are far more enlightening and reflect more expertise than I with regard to the public attention that we are being overwhelmed with when it comes to government and politics.

I thought that I would take a little time to write about the working parts of government that are not being included in any public discussion.

Today I will share my thoughts on education and the branch of the government tasked with oversight and actions related to such an important topic.

I have always been one who has thought that we have a dropout crisis in this country.  As a matter of fact, according to National Center for Education Statistics, the dropout rate for K-12 youth is approximately 8%.  This encouraging percentage doesn’t include those who are being homeschooled or those who acquire a General Education Diploma (GED).  The steady decline started in the late 60s with an accelerated decline during the Bush and Obama administrations.

Not surprisingly, minorities, including Blacks and Hispanics do make up a disproportionate part of the drop out rate within these statistics.  Interestingly, the dropout rate of those within these minority groups is also significantly on the decline.

It should be unacceptable that a high percentage of the American drop out population live at the poverty level and have to depend on Social programs such as welfare to exist. As a country, we need to work on this.  Even if you drop out of high school and move into the workforce, it is reported that you will make approximately $11,000 a year less than graduates.

Betsy Devos, Education Secretary, has been under fire because of her lack of knowledge related to how the Public School systems in this country work.  It stands to reason that she is not all that effective in representing the needs of our public schools.  The amount of time she spends promoting for profit charter and private schools demonstrates her lack of expertise.

Importantly, The Department of Education is still very understaffed and has been since she was sworn in.  As a citizen and as a cabinet secretary, she needs to appoint knowledgeable and effective professional staff into her department in order for her and the American public to have experts playing roles to better American education.

As a positive and long before it was a popular topic, philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates have been preaching and putting their money where their mouths are in order to provide material and intellectual resources that enhance our educational ideology.  Their involvement will help our country succeed and will help place technology on the top of the list of educational priorities.

Work groups including the construction and the automotive trade vocations are still very important, yet training in the ever-evolving technology fields must continue to grow or we will fall behind globally.

We are also susceptible to not keeping up with this country’s employment demand related to the technology fields.  It would not be good for the future of jobs if American technology companies have to import a qualified work force.  No matter who represents education in our government, we need to make sure that our students are keeping up.

To me, continuing education is a whole different animal.  Private, public and online colleges tend to do a pretty good job of adapting.  The unfortunate part is the fact that a large percentage of our youth cannot avail themselves to the benefits of college.

I believe that our Secretary needs to stop spending so much time focusing on private, charter and religious education.  These groups will do just fine on their own.  We need focus more on the needs of our public schools.  As well as public schools as a whole, I think we need to be more aggressive in addressing the needs of our large urban public schools.  On the same coin, we need to address the issues that are important to our rural school systems.

I beleive we need to standardize country wide, the core curriculums in our schools.

Personally, I think that prioritizing and promoting the growth of charter and private schools could result in an environment very similar to the days of segregation directly effecting some of our poor and minority populations.

To me, It doesn’t make sense to offer the proposed vouchers and tax credits in order to provide a choice for youth to have an alternative to free public education.  Tell me how the lower income American is going to translate a tax credit in to money for a non-public supported education.  Current federal funding for the public school system is very important.  I think we could improve on how we provide the resources.  Even though there is an ongoing debate about local community school improvement being funded by grants of which are typically paid for by homeowners, I don’t see this changing anytime soon.

Since the graduation rate in this country is becoming so high, it makes sense that something is working.  Why not focus on the programs that are in place now.

At the very least, government should be doing a lot more than they are currently doing.

I can’t find any current legislation that is significantly improving education in America.  There has been some movement on issues such as the repeal of the law that effects how sexual assaults are reported at universities.  Even though the topic is a hot potato, I guess they have to start somewhere.  As a positive, I think that the ongoing discussions on how best to incorporate both private and public resources to help with school loan debt is good. I just don’t see any meaningful movement.

Next, my thoughts on the EPA, Interior, health and human services and more.

What will it take for the Tide of the Current ECONOMIC BOOM to Change?

I have been giving some thought to and doing a little digging relative to the current boom of our economy.  I came up with a few questions that give me pause.  At what point will the economy plateau or turn south?  The truth is I don’t really know the answers to most of these questions. Also, please forgive my grammar and punctuation.

Since an increase of corporate earnings is reflective in part by price increases, won’t there inevitably be a rise in inflation thus interest rates?  If the interest rate rises, won’t that cause there to be too much consumer debt especially with large financed purchases such as housing?  What will be the long term effect of the surge in refinancing?

Can the domestic capital and development investment boom continue indefinitely?

What long term effect if any, will  the NYSE’s activity with regard to investment into international markets have on American investment?

With the proposed new tax plan and supposed reduction in deductions, won’t the real net percentage that corporations and other large businesses pay actually increase as opposed to the benefits of deductions and loopholes they enjoy now?  If there is significant tax savings for corporations, won’t companies use a significant amount of the money to pay dividends to their shareholders?  Since the earnings per share wouldn’t be adversely effected, won’t a significant number of businesses move the cash from the reduction of their tax liability offshore or increase their investment in the often lucrative foreign markets?  Who is going to pay the difference in the lost tax income?  Taxpayers?  Will we just throw it into the bucket along with the rest of our rapidly growing deficit?  How can conservatives support that or better yet, why would they?

How can the repeal of tax deductions such as the elimination of the 401k deduction or the repeal of the so unpopular estate tax possibly help the middle class?  There is an example used by some in government who say that the repeal will benefit the working class and their families.  Frequently they refer to the property assets of the multi generational farmer.  Don’t most people that have that much debt free property set up trusts or include their kids on the titles in order to avoid the death tax?  The truth is the estate tax doesn’t effect the mom and pop family business owner who has less than five million in assets.  Isn’t the repeal only meant to benefit the wealthy?

Isn’t the export of jobs more reflective of lower labor costs and almost non existent regulations, not taxes?

Don’t large companies like Amazon realize more significant tax breaks directly from the states and municipalities that attract them to operate within their borders?  Isn’t the decision of many companies on where they call home effected significantly by being able to operate and manufacture in states that don’t have organized labor?

Since the trend of growth in new jobs requires retraining of existing labor forces, wouldn’t there be a significant number of workers who can’t afford to be out of work while they are being retrained?  Won’t those effected end up having to work in jobs with employers such as Walmart or McDonalds that offer a fraction of the pay that they are accustomed to.  Wouldn’t this reduce the number of workers who would otherwise make up the middle class?

Doesn’t the federal labor statistics reflect such employment as growth regardless of the pay.  Also, don’t these statistics not take into consideration those who are no longer looking for jobs and are depending on social programs such as welfare to exist?  Does the national drug epidemic have a significant effect on the pool of sober, responsible labor, especially in areas with a high rate of unemployment?  Doesn’t that mean that there are places in America that have good paying jobs but can’t find qualified people to work?  I  don’t understand why an unemployed coal miner in Virginia doesn’t move his or her family to places like Montana where there are jobs.  Isn’t that the whole plot of the story in the book Grapes of Wrath?

What will be the effect on the economy as a result of the diminishing number of retail brick and mortar companies?  Doesn’t this put states and cities in a major bind trying to collect taxes from sources like online stores in order to close the gap caused by the lost revenue from failed retailers?  What about the impact on jobs?

It has been said that the GDP and number of jobs will grow as the storm and fire ravaged parts of the country are rebuilt.  At some point, won’t this growth tail off especially within the building and supported business sectors as a significant number of the projects are completed?

Aren’t most of these projects being paid for by insurance companies?  Won’t that generally increase insurance rates thus mortgage payments throughout the country?

Some in the current administration and congress are touting the increased number of jobs within industries such as coal, pipeline construction and numerous other industries.  Since the coal industry will no longer be able to provide any significant additional employment and most of the pipeline jobs will disappear when such projects are completed, what effect will this reality have on the confidence of American’s who believe and have been promised that many of these jobs will become available, pay well and provide long term employment?  What will be the effect on the economy?

How will a trade war with countries such as China work?  How can you force them to either buy more from this country or be levied taxes and tariffs that will mostly have a negative effect on American companies?  Isn’t it true that a majority of the products produced in places such as China are imported by companies big and small who basically provide specs and designs and have places like China produce and package them?  Isn’t that what “Made in China” on the labels really means?  I don’t think I have ever seen a Chinese car or authentic Chinese tie or pair of shoes.

Speaking of ties and shoes and totally off the subject, most people don’t know that if you buy a few pallets of basic varietal wines from some producers, they will be happy to slap your label on the bottles and you can call it your own brand.  Imagine where that thought came from.  While I’m at it, most people don’t know that a significant number of Chinese and Teriyaki restaurants in this country are operated by Koreans.  Ok, I’ll get back on track.

Am I off base or doesn’t the logic ring true that foreign manufactures such as Toyota build a significant number of their products in the US mostly because of the better quality, technology and other factors including shipping expenses?  For their foreign customers, isn’t it also cheaper to export them from here rather than export them to here?  By building them here, don’t they attract buyers who see “Made in America” as an important consideration for their purchases?  Wouldn’t it be true that export tariffs wouldn’t make much of a difference in their decision to produce in the US?  Wouldn’t these new expenses simply show up on the window sticker?

I may totally wrong but doesn’t the US owe a ton of money to the Chinese for the bonds they were required to accept in past trade deals?  If so, what if they wanted to collect?

Isn’t there a “put up or shut up” component with regard to investors in the stock market and everywhere else?  If congress and the administration don’t deliver as promised, won’t that change the entire picture of our economy?  If they do, how long will things continue to be rosey?

What happens to our market based economy when important regulations are reinstated in the event that there is a change in the congressional and presidential majority?  Isn’t it true that most Americans have yet to feel the effects of the recent and significant wholesale repeal of regulations including the very important ones related to our environment?

What will happen to our economy when the global markets become infected by the lack of our government’s ability to recognize important rules and traditions?

This includes article one section seven, clause 2 of our constitution titled “from bill to law” which in spirit is designed to force bi-party discussion and compromise supported by thoughtful, meaningful and written contributions based on a knowledgeable interpretation of legislation by our President?

Am I wrong or doesn’t decisions to support or reject specific legislation over dinner, on the golf course, through the advice of extremists and conspiracy theorists or on social media show a deliberate dereliction of these provisions?

I could go on for days.  Some of these questions and comments may be far fetched yet I strongly believe there will have to be a tipping point…at some point.

What do you think?