Bobillweaver Horizons

It was a mild sunny April afternoon on a small family farm in middle Georgia. It was Monday and washday, and Maggie Tifton was hanging out to dry her family’s clothes that she had spent the better part of the day washing. Maggie was surprised when she looked up and saw her husband Roy coming around the house leading one of the family’s mules.
Maggie said, “I didn’t expect you home this early.”
Roy said, “I pushed old Jamokey purty hard to get that northeast patch plowed so I can start planting it in a day or two. I’m gonna walk into town and try to get a little loan from the County Bank so I can buy some cotton seed.”
Maggie said, “Will you be back by supper? The last time you went to town, you didn’t get back till midnight. I heard you made a fool of yourself at Fuller’s Bar.”
Roy said, “Aw Maggie, don’t make me out to be so irresponsible. I promise I’ll be back for supper, maybe by sundown. Don’t fret none about me. Tell Joey to take care that ole Jamokey gets fed and watered real good. I drove him party hard today.”
Maggie said, “I’ll tell him, and by the way, bring back a sack of Martha White, Self-Rising flour from Mr. Johnson’s Store, that is if he’s still giving us credit.”
When Roy got to the road and headed toward town, he turned around and waved at Maggie, and she waved back.

The next morning, Maggie walked to town and went straight to the County Bank, The bank manager told her that Roy had been in the day before and asked for a loan, but that the bank had had to turn him down.”
Maggie said, “did he act letdown about that?”
The manager said, “no, he just got up and shook my hand and walked out.”

Maggie found Mr. Johnson sweeping up his store and asked him if he had seen Roy the day before.
Mr. Johnson said, “yep, Roy stopped in for a few minutes around 5 O’clock.”
Maggie said, “did he buy anything?”
“Yep, he bought a BC Headache powder and washed it down with a Cocola.”
“Did he buy anything else?”
“Yep, he bought a sack of flour.”

The town policeman, was at his desk reading the morning paper when Maggie walked in and said, “Jake, did you see Roy yesterday?”
“No, Maggie,” but I heard he was at Fuller’s Bar for a while and that he mentioned that he was thinking about going on a trip.”

The train station agent told Maggie that Roy had bought a one-way ticket to Atlanta but couldn’t say whether Roy had boarded the train.
Maggie said, “did he say anything or act out-of-the-way?”
The agent said, “no, he just took the ticket and walked out.”

The news spread quickly that Roy Tifton was missing, and people from the town and county turned out to search the Tifton farm and both sides of the road between town and the farm, but they found no clues. The Macon Telegraph devoted front-page coverage to Roy’s disappearance for two weeks, and The Georgia Bureau of Investigation got involved. A few people from Macon and Atlanta called in to report possible sightings of Roy, but none panned out. Life was hard for the Tifton family, especially during the first year after Roy’s disappearance, but somehow Maggie and the three boys managed. The government opened a munitions plant in Macon soon after the war began, and Maggie was able to land a good-paying job, and the family’s life from that point was much improved.

Five years after Roy Tifton disappeared, on a sunny April afternoon, Maggie Tifton looked across the clothesline where she was hanging clothes, and there was Roy Tifton walking toward her with a sack of flour across one shoulder.
He stopped and faced her across the clothesline. She looked him up and down and said, “Roy, you are a sorry, no-account irresponsible scoundrel and can’t be depended on to do anything right.”
Roy said. “Maggie, what do you mean? I tried to get that loan, but they turned me down. “
“Yeah, the bank manager told me.”
“I got back in time for supper just like I promised.”
“Yeah, I can see that.”
“And I remembered to bring you the sack of flour you asked me to.”
“I can see that too. But I told you to bring me a sack of “Martha White” self-rising Flour, and danged if you didn’t bring me a sack of “Southern Maiden” all-purpose flour!”

– and should not be allowed to take action which he opposed much too long.

President Trump finally did the right thing and announced a National Emergency that has brought the full power of the US Government into battle against the Coronavirus. Perhaps for the first time he will see what great work our government can do, if given the opportunity. I believe the members of the team who are putting the emergency plan into action understand the problem and will see that it gets fixed, even as they praise the President for doing what he obviously did not do – which was to take steps early-on to mitigate the effects of the virus. He has said he will not take responsibility for any failure to act, and he can be expected to blame his failure on every imaginable circumstance and everyone except himself.

What the President said to justify his decisions not to take actions required early-on and to discourage Americans from taking the virus seriously is a matter of public record. From misquoting the rising numbers of people who were infected and died, to claiming the virus was nothing and would go away on its own, he spread lies and misinformation, which he hoped would decrease the negative impact on his political future. But facts made available by the press and by contradictions of his claims by members of his Coronavirus team highlighted his dishonesty and false claims.

So, whereas I’m glad the President has finally made the decision to put the power of the American government into the battle to defeat the Coronavirus, I believe he was forced into that decision by facts which he could not deny. News sources and the American people should not allow him to take credit for an action he opposed too long with all his might. The President’s failure to act in a timely manner to protect the American people in this instance should be an important issue in the upcoming Presidential elections.

Yesterday President Trump announced that he was banning (through executive order) the import of Corona Beer from Mexico because he believes the beer is the source of the deadly Coronavirus in The United States. “Mexico is retaliating against our great country for making such great, tremendous and perfect progress with building the Great National Wall on our beautiful southern border”, the President said on Fox News last night on the “Sean Hannity Show”. All beer in stores and warehouses must be sold or destroyed by the COB on Friday March 13, 2020 and beer in the in the homes or hands of Americans must be consumed by March 15. The President’s decision came after Hannity and Laura Ingram, also of Fox News, each drank a six-pack of Corona Beer on Hannity’s show Wednesday night. What happened next was surprising: they became nauseated, not nauseating, which is what they usually are on their respective shows. Ingram was more coherent than usual while Hannity babbled this: “I pledge allegiance to President Donald Trump and to the Republicans on which he stands.” They both woke up the next morning with throbbing headaches, upset stomachs, and a blackout of what happened the night before. These are all symptoms of the Coronavirus, and hence the decision by the President to ban Corona Beer from the United States.

A Rewrite of American History with a Different President.

People everywhere in America are gathered around their radios to hear what the President will say about going to war. The date is December 8, 1941. Now, hear the President speak:

“Dear Fellow Americans, let me assure you that you have no cause to panic, or reason for concern. What happened yesterday should and will be forgotten soon, that is if the fake news media will shut down for a few days. If they don’t, I may decide to shut them down through an emergency executive order. What happened yesterday was a non-consequential attack on a minor US naval base by a small, backward nation thousands of miles from Washington. The media has already taken what happened and weaponized it against me and my administration. It’s another attempt to undo the result of an election that took place a little more than a year ago. The sneak attack was stopped within minutes, and losses to our military were minor: one battleship and two destroyers sustained minor damage, one small airplane flipped on its back, and three seamen were slightly shell-shocked.

I will ask Congress not to declare war, because that action would acknowledge to the attackers that we believe the attack is worthy of starting a war. I had not heard of the offending nation until yesterday, which I am told is a country made up of several tiny islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The United States with its powerful military force will be mocked by the world if we declare war on a tiny upstart nation which can barely feed itself, let alone wage war against the most powerful nation in the world. I intend to take no further notice of the offending nation unless it shows further signs of aggression toward our nation. If it does, I will order sanctions, enough to bring that nation to its knees from starvation. And if that doesn’t work, I will order the Army Air Corps, Navy and Marine Corps to bomb the islands and their populations to extinction. That result, I believe, can be accomplished in two weeks.

Now, let’s wait and see what happens, and thank God for helping us Make America Great Again.”

Disclosure – It’s a joke?
President Trump Will Correct the Record of Benedict Arnold

In the early years of the American Revolutionary war, Benedict Arnold was a brilliant military general who helped win many important victories against the British, However, in 1779 he helped hatch a scheme to give up the American post at West Point in New York for money and a command in the British army. The plan was foiled, and Arnold escaped to the British lines. He was never captured and tried for the betrayal of his country, but since then his name has been synonymous with traitor.

President Trump announced yesterday that he would use his powers as President to correct the grave injustice inflicted on Arnold by the American government and historians. He insisted that Arnold’s record as a general was unparalleled in American military history and that Arnold’s grossly unfair treatment by the American government was a disgrace and justified the general’s decision to turn against his county. “Some very bad people conspired to besmirch this good general’s record the same way that some very bad people have hounded me in witch hunt after witch hunt” the President said. “The general made a perfect decision and the right decision, and I will order all government records be altered to correct the disgraceful and vengeful attacks on this great American hero’s good reputation.”

The President said he had sent a letter to the Departments of Defense ordering them to implement his plan and went on to say that Attorney General Barr had told him that he would take immediate action to enforce the order. Before the President stepped away from the podium, he said he would be looking at several candidates and would pick one soon to take the place of Benedict Arnold as the most reviled military officer in American history. The most immediate effect of that announcement is that 35 generals and 27 admirals have submitted their resignations to Congress. Furthermore, the faces on the statues of several American generals, including that of Grant, Eisenhower and McArthur have exhibited worried looks.

Portrait in Prose of a Colorful Man – by and Unnamed Writer

There now lives among us a boorish and coarse self-appointed king, whose ideas, though somewhat polished and sharpened by education and experience are still large, florid, and untrammeled, as becomes the half of him which is barbaric. He is a man of exuberant fancy, and, withal, of an authority so irresistible that, at his will, he turns his varied fancies into facts. He is greatly given to self-communing, and, when he and himself agree upon anything, the thing is done. When every member of his domestic and political systems moves smoothly in its appointed course, his nature is bland and genial; but, whenever there is a little hitch, and some of his orbs get out of their orbits, his actions are driven by his barbaric instinct to survive, and nothing pleases him so much as to make the crooked straight and crush down uneven places.

My Comments

I could not have written the description above because I don’t have the skills, and my writing style, which is sometimes flowery, is not so flamboyant and overtly stylish as this. I did edit the text, though slightly, taking pains not to alter the details of the description, which I think is remarkable and to the point. The writer has painted a portrait so colorful and descriptive that you know the man immediately from what you’ve heard him say and seen him do. You know too that the man gets blind obedience from most of his fervent subjects, though some have a love-hate relationship with him. But enough, the description fits the man. Who will dispute that? Leave me your comments.

Yesterday, January 31, 2020, 51 of the 53 Republican Senators voted to bar witnesses from testifying, as well as to bar documentary evidence from being presented in the impeachment trial of President Trump. Only Susan Collins and Mitt Romney broke ranks to vote to allow witnesses and documents. I predict that immensely important vote will be remembered in history as unprecedented and abusive. Why? Because it means that most of the same Republican Senators will go even farther next week and vote to acquit the President and end the impeachment trial. Their verdict will be rammed through, even as they block testimony and evidence that might show the President to be guilty as charged with abuse of his presidential power. The abuse-of-power charge is that he pressured a foreign leader to perform a corrupt in act in exchange for military aid that had been authorized by Congress.

Evidence that would have been important to the impeachment trial will come out eventually, some in timely leaks and some, perhaps in torrents. The 51 Republican Senators who voted against allowing witnesses and documents will be asked to account for their rush to judgment. You can be sure those Senators are already preparing for that eventuality, and it will be interesting to see how they handle those questions. No matter how disingenuous their explanations may be, those Senators will not outrun the judgment of history and time. You can bet that the public obituary of each of the 100 US Senators will make mention of how he/she voted January 31, 2020 on the motion to allow witnesses and other evidence in the Trial of Impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump.

If history repeats itself in the upcoming vote by senators in the impeachment trial of President Trump, the president will be acquitted. Why? Because no senator in the same party as a president on trial by the senate has ever voted to convict. But this brief article is not about whether the current president will be convicted. It’s about a two-pronged argument advanced by Alan Dershowitz, the most showy and scholarly lawyer on the president’s defense team. The first argument that Mr. Dershowitz makes is that a president cannot be impeached for abuse of power. The second is that a president cannot be impeached for an act that he believes is in the interest of the country. Then Mr. Dershowitz concludes that these two arguments lead to the following conclusion: since President Trump believes that his reelection is in the interest of the country, any action he takes to promote his reelection is not impeachable. Mr. Dershowitz is simply defending what President Trump has said on national television, that article II of the constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wishes. The argument made by President Trump and his scholarly lawyer, if accepted, would make the impeachment clause in the constitution superfluous. It follows that President Nixon could have finished his second term in office and be listed among the wisest and most honorable presidents in American history, if only Alan Dershowitz could have been on his defense team.

I made the photo from the deck of the Queen Mary II as she pulled of New York Harbor on a voyage to England in 2004.

One of the most solemn duties of a Senator is to sit as an impartial juror in a trial after a President has been impeached by the House of Representatives The Senate as a body has recognized the extraordinary importance of fairness and impartiality of such a trial and has required that each Senator take the following oath, which is in addition to his oath of office as a Senator.

“I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of the President, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

The oath is clear: it gives a Senator no constitutional or moral justification to avoid doing his solemn and impartial duty in the trial of a President. It makes no difference whether a Senator believes the charges are justified or even whether they are trivial. Each Senator is bound by oath to consider all the evidence presented at the trial. He is then bound to render an impartial verdict that is in full accord with his oath – or else be guilty of breeching that oath and his or her solemn Constitutional duty.

Now, to the impending impeachment trial in the Senate of the current President. Some Senators have already boasted that they will make every effort to make a farce of the trial and to insure it will not be impartial. One Senator had this to say, “I’m not an impartial juror.” Note that his statement is an outright admission that he plans to violate his solemn oath of office and the Constitution. The Senator went on to say, “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision.” Note that you won’t find anything in the constitution or the Senator’s oath of office to support his brazen promise not to do his duty.

Unfortunately the Senator mentioned above is not alone when he promises to turn the impending Constitutionally-mandated impeachment trial into a mockery of justice and the Constitution. Some Senators in both political parties have shown a willingness to treat the impending impeachment trial as a political process and refuse to do their Constitutional duties. How can we expect to remain a democratic republic if we continue to elect government officials who are willing to betray their sacred trusts solely for political reasons – and boast about it.?

The President has been impeached for specific, well-documented actions. But why he took those actions and made those statements is at the heart of of the charges levied against him.

The articles of Impeachment voted against President Trump December 18 are based on some of his most well-documented and undisputed actions and statements. Whether the President is guilty of the actions and statements for which he is accused depends only on whether he acted in the interest of the United States or in his own personal and political interests.

The first article of impeachment, when boiled down to its essence, is that the President abused his power when he asked the President of Ukraine to begin an investigation against Joe Biden, a presidential candidate, and his son Hunter. He has also stated publicly that Ukraine should begin that investigation. Neither of these is in dispute. One is based on what he said to Ukraine’s president in a well-publicized telephone call and the other is recorded on video. The question that must be answered during the President’s trial in the Senate is whether he asked Ukraine’s President to make that announcement to help root out general corruption in Ukraine – or whether he wanted the announcement to damage Joe Biden’s reputation, and in effect, to hurt Biden’s chances of becoming President of the United States. The interest of the United States would be served in the former case, but only the President’s personal and political interests in the latter.

The second article of impeachment is that the President abused his power by obstructing congress’s ability to carry out a constitutionally authorized investigation into the President’s conduct. It’s undisputed that the President acted to obstruct that investigation by blocking witnesses from testifying before Congress and denying congress the documents they needed in their investigation. What’s more, the obstruction worked, – that is important witnesses did not come forward and the documents were not released to Congress. In this matter the question which much be answered is did the President act in good faith and in the interest of The United States or were his actions illegal and contrary to the intent of the impeachment process as set out in the Constitution.

Another way to look at the impeachment and the upcoming trail in the Senate is to ask yourself the following question: Is it more likely that this particular President acted wholly in the interest of the country in both actions for which he has been impeached or is it more likely that he acted with the intent to corrupt the 2020 elections and then acted illegally to block Congress’s investigation into his actions. That goes to the very heart of what’s this impeachment and the upcoming trial in the senate is about.