Category: Politics and Issues

Top ten US Government steps toward healthcare reformPractical actions toward reformsBy Aaron Fausz, Ph.D., andW. Terry Howell, Ed.D. (February 24,2020) 1.   Price Transparency.Continue to demand transparency of prices and quality of care in all aspects of healthcare, i.e. hospitals, clinics, etc. This will expose the huge, unnecessary variation in prices for the same procedures, and will enable customers to shop for low cost, high-quality health care like we do for everything else!    2.   Allow Health Insurance to be Sold Across State Lines. Eliminate restrictions on insurance portability across state lines. Consumers should be able to go online and choose policies offered by large numbers of insurance companies with a wide variety of plans. This will allow consumers to purchase exactly what they need with nothing extra (just like they can do for their homeowners, auto, life and other types of insurance not provided by employers).    3.   Expand Health Savings Accounts. Do everything possible to encourage consumers to become shoppers. Expand Health Saving Accounts for all, including after retirement. Encourage employers to move from a defined healthcare benefits model to a defined healthcare contribution model. This, combined with the previous recommendations, will allow employees to seek and receive only the care they need. We see this as a transition to the next step which is to disconnect health insurance from employment just like other types of insurance.     4.   Disconnect Health Insurance from Employment. Eliminate tax incentives for employers to provide health insurance for their employees. The onus for purchasing health insurance should be on the individual, who should be incented to keep themselves healthy and to shop around for the best health insurance deal. Further, health insurance should only cover catastrophic health needs (not everyday things) in the same way our homeowners and automobile insurance policies cover only major events.   Combined with price transparency, the costs for routine health services will plummet when everyone is forced to pay their own way and providers are forced to compete for consumers’ business.    5.   Teach that Healthcare = Medical Care + Self Care. Begin a nationwide campaign to educate consumers that healthcare= self-care + medical care. There is an epidemic of chronic disease in this country caused by four behaviors: excessive drinking, smoking, eating too much sugar and refined carbohydrates, and failing to exercise. These behaviors lead directly to hypertension (high blood pressure), heart disease, lung disease, and type two diabetes, which account for 70% of total healthcare dollars spent.  Because many people don’t attend to the self-care part of the healthcare equation, too many end up with one or more of these chronic diseases. They then expect the medical community to ‘fix’ their problem with pills or surgery. The medical community is ill-equipped to deal with this epidemic, which requires lifestyle changes that a 15-minute visit to the doctor cannot bring about.    6.   Move Medical Care to the Appropriate Skill Level. Simplify credentialing and remove outmoded scope-of-practice limits on qualified nurse practitioners and physician assistants. In other words, the government should eliminate archaic obstacles to competition among medical providers. This will help the industry move work to the appropriate skill level, thereby reducing cost as well as the need for as many physicians. Physicians readily admit they are often working at the lower end of their skill set by performing tasks that others with less training could do just as well. Collectively across the country, this amounts to huge waste in the system.    7.   Make Teaching Self Care a Priority in Schools. Instruct and inspire children to take control of their health maintenance through intensified instruction on nutrition, exercise, stress management, and the negative effects of not taking care of yourself. Bring in healthy role models (athletes, health coaches, physicians, etc.) to teach and inspire children to take control of their health.    8.   Encourage Control of Medical Costs and Quality at the State Level. Move Medicaid dollars to the States to manage as they see fit, but encourage them to use the dollars to address the social determinates of care (such as housing, food security, job training, and placement). They should insist on transparency, reduce pharmacy costs, use Centers of Excellence for expensive surgeries, and send patients to local providers that are willing to go “at-risk” to provide primary care.   The federal government should insist on quality, safety and patient satisfaction data being tracked and going up, while healthcare costs are going down due to strategies to get and keep people healthy.    9.   Reign in Big Pharma. Enable and encourage patients to purchase FDA approved drugs from anywhere in the world. Other countries are just as concerned as ours regarding the quality of drugs, and for a variety of reasons their costs are much cheaper. Don’t let Big Pharma in the U.S get away with saying they have to charge U.S. so much more because we are the only country that does the research and development. This is simply not true. Also, Medicare should be allowed to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Currently, it cannot. We need to quit requiring U.S. citizens to subsidize Big Pharma!   10. Take on the Food Industry. Force the food industry to quit filling everything with sugar and other refined carbohydrates and to quit lying to the public about which foods are healthy and which are not. The government should also end Food Stamp subsidies for unhealthy foods and encourage healthier food choices.   The book: https://amzn.to/37UjnBB (click here) The authors: AARON FAUSZ holds a PhD in industrial andorganizational psychology from the University ofTennessee in Knoxville, with a minor in industrial engineering. In addition to this book, he is coauthor of Leading Healthcare Improvement: A Personal and Organizational Journey. Dr. Fausz has helped numerous organizations align and improve their personnel and business systems to accomplish strategic objectives. He has consulted with leading healthcare organizations across the country, including Denver Health, Henry Ford Health System, Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic Health System, University Health Services, University of Texas Medical Branch, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and many others.W. TERRY HOWELL, Ed.D. has a doctorate in counseling psychology from the University of Tennessee and postdoctoral work in organizational development at Vanderbilt. He just recently started Skye Solutions, LLC focusing primarily on disruptive innovations in healthcare. Dr, Howell’s consulting and executive coaching clients over the years have included a wide range of hospitals and hospital systems: Sloan Kettering, Yale–New Haven, Vanderbilt Adult Hospital, George Washington University Health System, Henry Ford Healthcare System, Denver Healthcare, St. Jude Children’s Research Center, Hospital Corporation of America, Kaiser Permanente, and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, among others. © 2020 Richfield Press. All rights reserved Reprinted with permission.

Dr. Larry Fedewa | 12061 Rose Hall Drive, Clifton, VA 20124Unsubscribe tomdonelson@aol.comUpdate Profile | About Constant ContactSent by drlarry@richfieldpress.com in collaboration withTry email marketing for free today!

China manufactures tons of products for America, will slow the economy. This virus is not as lethal as SARS. I do think it will spread in the USA but the season change could cause it to run its course.

China manufactures tons of products for America, will slow the economy. This virus is not as lethal as SARS. I do think it will spread in the USA but the season change could cause it to run its course.

This virus will most likely spread in the USA. It’s less lethal than SARS. I don’t anticipate a crisis. Use common sense. Face masks aren’t effective. Wash your hands. Don’t take babies or elderly in public. Don’t touch your eyes, nose, mouth in public until you wash hands.

people should understand people die from pneumonia. If you get sick, go to your doctor or local ER. Take action. Children, elderly, immune deficient , people who are already ill with serious diagnosis are at the highest risk. Stay home, wash hands, don’t touch face in public

But because the flu is so common — infecting up to 45 million Americans a season — deaths could climb as high as 61,000 people each flu season just in the U.S., according to the CDC.

The number of deaths in China is startling, but remember, even a virus with a low fatality rate can kill many people if the number of infections is large. For example, influenza kills 0.14% of infected patients, said Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of microbiology at Baylor in HouTx

Three issues the Dems own: Wealth Gap, Health Care and Climate ChangeThere are free market solutions waiting for GOP support

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (February 11, 2020) On most of the issues highlighting the 2020 campaign, the Republicans have a great story, especially the economy, law enforcement, foreign policy (including trade), national security, energy, and job creation. The Democrats have concentrated on three critical issues, however, which are nearly ignored by most Republicans: the wealth gap, health care, and climate change This silence is a tragic mistake because current polls show that these three issues are of critical importance to significant numbers of the American electorate. If Republican candidates continue to ignore these two issues, they will suffer in the only polls that really count – the votes in November. Today’s topic is the wealth gap, with discussions of health care and climate change to follow in succeeding columns. I use the term, “wealth gap” in preference to “wage gap” and “income inequality” because “wealth” includes assets which are relatively long range as opposed to “wages” or “income” which may fluctuate from time to time. The Republican response to the wealth gap is the “trickle-down” economic theory: prosperity for the wealthy means incremental income to the entire workforce because the wealthy will of necessity invest in an expanding economy thus benefiting the workers who actually produce new goods and services by which the economy is actually expanded. This is the argument prominently featured by President Trump in his famous rallies. And, measured by present and past metrics, it is true. A flourishing economy does indeed raise wages and job opportunities. When applied to a stagnant employment environment, the chief beneficiaries on a percentage basis are the lower wage workers – i.e. when a person goes from unemployed to employed, the percentage of improvement is 100%. This is, of course, a valuable trend. The next step, however, poses an altogether different problem: in a tight labor market – which America is rapidly approaching – how does an employer retain an experienced worker? And an ancillary problem: how does the country avoid a steady inflation, as wages rise, and senior employees can seek and find ever higher wages?       There are free market solutions to both these questions. My answer may be considered by traditional economics a radical solution, namely profit-sharing. There are various ways to implement the concept of profit-sharing – e.g. stock grants or options, profit-based bonuses, or employee stock option plans (ESOP), among others. The basic hedge against inflation is the fact that increases in income to the workers comes from profits rather than expenses, so prices do not have to increase. The operational result is that workers who have a stake in the performance of the company tend to work harder and more efficiently, and greater income leads to higher job satisfaction and loyalty. There are other reasons to advocate profit-sharing. One reason is redressing the imbalance in asset ownership in America, which currently shows that at least 80% of America’s wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. This is a frightening situation for a democracy which is founded on a prosperous middle class. Oligarchs are waiting to rule the nation (e.g. already three billionaires are running for president).        There is also a moral reason for profit-sharing which can be summarized as follows:1) The increase in national wealth over the past 200 years is due primarily to increases in productivity, which in turn is due to new technologies.2) The implementation of technological innovations involves a number of stakeholders – inventors, investors, managers, implementers and buyers.3) The benefits of the new technologies are currently heavily weighted toward all the stakeholders expect the implementers – the workers who bring into actual being the ideas of the inventor – i.e. they design and build the machinery which produces the product, fabricate it, market and sell it, repair it and teach users. Without the implementers, there would be no technology – only ideas on paper.4) All of the stakeholders should be rewarded when the product is sold; it is only fair, therefore, that each be rewarded in proportion to the value of their contribution to the success (or failure) of the product. This is called “profit-sharing”. This idea is not as novel nor as radical as it may seem to traditionalists. In the first place, the entire history of free-market capitalism shows it ever evolving towards more and more recognition of the value of labor in the forward march of progress. It is also true that the chief proponents of this march have historically been the organized labor movement – at least until the 1970’s. Since then American unions have shifted from ever advancing workers’ rights in the marketplace to attempting to achieve progress through government intervention, which has meant in practice an alliance with the Democrat Party and a slippery slope toward socialism. The results have not been encouraging. We have seen the denuding of America’s manufacturing base, the disheartening imbalance of income between management and labor, and the gradual slipping of much of America’s middle class into poverty and desperation. The bureaucracy of American Labor has failed miserably in protecting and advancing the cause of America’s workers. The most impressive advocacy for profit-sharing in today’s marketplace is called “Conscious Capitalism”. This is a rapidly growing group of companies who represent a new generation of free market businesses. It is both a movement and an organization. As an organization, Conscious Capitalism, Inc. now numbers thousands of companies, millions of employees, with chapters in 41 countries, and a number of large firms including Federal Express, Southwest Airlines and Costco among others. (For more information, see www.ConsciousCapitalism.org) As a movement, it counts Amazon as one of its colleagues along with many other companies, both large and small. While this group is not particularly fond of organized labor, I believe there is a place for Labor in this movement, unions which work with and not against management and represent workers who are both employees and recipients of prorated profits from their work.   The time for advancing workers’ rights is now – in the 2020 election campaign. To win back the workers of America, the GOP must move “Onward and Upward!”   © 2020 Richfield Press. All rights reserve

The 2020 State of the Union address had all the elements of a Shakespearean drama. The setting was filled with tension and made for television. The primary picture showed the hero flanked on his right by his loyal acolyte, Vice President Mike Pence, and on the left by his archenemy, the little old lady of the Left, Nancy Pelosi, as he eloquently, at times even poetically, told America what he had accomplished with the responsibility the voters had given him while his enemies had been trying to destroy his presidency. 

And it was quite a list! He has enhanced every facet of America’s welfare – from repatriating American manufacturing for both economic and national security reasons, to job creation, trade treaties, rebuilding the military, upgrading veterans’ health care, protecting our borders, to encouraging respect for the law enforcement community, protection of the right to bear arms, to the right to life of the unborn, the rights of parents to choose the education of their own children, to the fight against opioid addiction, human trafficking, and many more issues. 

Half the room went wild – while the other half sat stoically on their hands, grim-faced and cold-hearted. They were represented symbolically by the action of the little old lady of the Left, as she sat in full view of the audience and the camera.

Watching her was fascinating. Most of the time, she sat there with a slight scowl on her face, occasionally shaking her head at some statement by the speaker. Her torture had started when the President ignored her out-stretched hand after he handed her a copy of the speech. (One could hardly blame him for refusing to shake the hand which has tried to kill his office, his reputation, the rest of his life.) He was not going to forgive and forget this sworn enemy. 
After that, she steadfastly avoided standing to applaud each remarkableachievement being noted, frequently squirming, sometimes trying to get Mr. Pence’s attention – which was also ignored. 

Then came the salutes by Mr. Trump to a series of individuals. First, she hesitated; then she realized that she was not against these heroic people; so, she jumped up and applauded. Thereafter, she could be seen each time trying to decide whether to join the room or not. 

One “not” was the President’s attention to a two-year-old child who had been the first survivor of a premature birth at 21 weeks. A poignant moment not shared by Grandmother Pelosi. In the end, she stood and ceremoniously tore her copy of the speech in half in full view of the camera — and the nation. A fitting end by a hateful woman toward this hated man. 
Indeed, the most impressive feature of the entire Democrat party in that hall last night was the tangible hatred demonstrated toward the President and all he stands for — and, by extension, all those people who stand with him. 

This attitude was crystalized by the President’s attention to Rush Limbaugh, who was sitting in the gallery next to First Lady, Melanie Trump. Limbaugh announced last Monday that he has been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. When Mr. Trump announced the presentation to Mr. Limbaugh of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the popular, but visibly astonished, 69-year-old broadcast pioneer, some of the Democrats started shouting, “No! No!”
Their hatred might be understood since the younger ones were raised by liberal parents who considered Rush Limbaugh the archenemy of all that was sacred to them. But there is no denying that he is the most listened-to radio host of all time and the “father” of a whole new genre called “conservative talk show hosts” (of which this writer is one). It was not the time or place to demonstrate against this stricken giant. In all, the 2020 State of the Union speech by President Donald John Trump was perhaps the most riveting, dramatic and exciting speech of its kind in recent memory, if not in American history. 

Postscript: In the ultimate irony, the first Democrat response featured the Governor of Michigan, whose theme was that the Dems get things done, while the Republicans just talk. After 75 minutes of listening to the President give us a list of “promises kept” which may be the longest and most comprehensive list of actions by any president in American history — in contrast to the “Do-Nothing” Democrats. She exemplified the fact that the Dems simply cannot seem to hear anything this President says.

Notes of the Senate impeachment trial -#2Speeches over; questions next

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 29, 2020) Some impressions as the trial completes phase one and prepares for phase two: The first take-away is the comparison between the two presentations. The House speakers were on a mission and they showed it. They were obviously playing to the television audience more than the senators. Their rhetoric was graphic, at times crude (particularly Mr. Naylor). Their tone was passionate, sometimes angry. Their body language was tense.The exception was Mr. Schiff, who proved himself an effective and articulate advocate, who appeared convinced and convincing, especially in his opening summary. In his final speech, however, some of the earlier polish seemed to have worn off as he spoke of the President in personal and insulting terms, dripping with hatred. The President’s team overall was much cooler in manner, with the exception of Mr. Sekulow, who supplied the passion, sometimes slipping into anger. White House Counsel Patrick Capilione was quietly and rationally effective, in the sharpest contrast to the House team. I found his manner more effective than Sekulow’s. Anger in the Senate chamber seemed a bit out of place.In terms of the arguments on their merits, I, like many others, found the House case full of assumptions, presumptions and very weak. Of course, I had the same reaction to the original testimony, so my reaction to the trial presentation which was derived from and actually re-used large portions of the House footage was not surprising.The basic issue was the definition of “crime”. The House wants to call such terms as “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” crimes meeting the standard of the Constitution. That standard is admittedly brief – “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors”. However, the application of common sense to this description, as pointed out by the founders’ commentary, demands that “crimes” must be specific and provable. Otherwise, the charge is simply a matter of opinion and therefore indefensible. Such are the terms of the current articles approved by Democrat partisans in the House.The President’s team had their moments. Particularly damning was the recitation of the case against Joseph and Hunter Biden. Three lawyers split the presentation into Overview (Jay Sekulow), Facts (Pam Bondi) and Conclusions (Eric Herschmann). It is hard to believe that the elder Mr. Biden can continue to attract support for his presidential bid after such a graphic, detailed and public recitation of the case against him.Also notable was the presentation of Alan Dershowitz, who spoke to the constitutional standard of impeachment. His explanation was replete with citations and quotations and delivered in such a rapid-fire style that it was like trying to get a drink from a fire hose. The prominence of the speaker, however, added a certain level of authority to the argument. In view of his status as a lifelong Democrat, it is doubtful that his performance swayed any Democrats.Today’s defense of the President ended with a plea to the Senators from Mr. Capilione to preserve for the American people the right to vote for their president, and to vote “for what in your heart you know is right”. As one of the commentators observed, however, politicians rarely vote what is in their hearts, preferring to vote for their best political advantage – a cynical remark which is unfortunately all too often true. The overall impression of this entire exercise appears to be a gigantic waste of time and resources because the entire body of the Senate knew the outcome before the whole drama began. Namely, they will almost all vote the party line, and nothing said in this whole charade will change more than a few votes. The only true exceptions to this outcome will be those politicians who believe that they cannot be re-elected if they vote with the party or have already decided not to run again. This whole business has to be changed to accurately reflect the momentous responsibility involved in an impeachment vote for both the immediate present and future American generations. I don’t know how that can be accomplished, but it is imperative that this process not be allowed to destroy America’s electoral process. © 2020 Richfield Press. All rights reserve

Where we are.  The impeachment trial that yet to find any impeachable offense.  Before instituting an impeachment trial, you might want at least to find a crime or something really, really bad. Democrats did not do this.

First thing that is obvious.  On points and as the trial proceeded, Trump’s team simply have destroyed the Democratic case.  Look at Pam Bondi case against Biden’s corruption in which she uses materials from MSM. She made the case that Biden’s should be investigated.

Schiff, so widely praised by the MSM, has done more to sink his case than anyone man.  His arrogance along with Jerry Nadler had to irritate the GOP’s Senator.

One of my favorites in which Alan Dershowitz noted that Presidents often put condition on aid, is demanding Palestinian to quit paying terrorist as part of aid. The fact that a policy may benefit a President doesn’t mean it is not in national interest. 

Schiff essentially stated that quid for quo is bad regardless of what is being accomplished. His view means no President could do their job or in some cases, would be force to allow something bad to happen as oppose a trade off in the national means. 

Bondi already made the case that Biden’s should be investigated and others have detailed the FISA abuses and noted that Trump was investigated while running for office. DOJ stated recently noted, there was no probable cause for Trump investigation. There is plenty of cause to investigate Biden.

Here is the final wrap up.  Democrats failed to make the case there was a any real quid for quo. The weapons flowed despite no public announcements of any Ukrainian investigation of the Biden. If Trump wanted to tie the aid to investigating Biden, he did not end up doing it. No abuse committed.

As for Bolton, there is a video tape of him agreeing with others close to Trump, no quid for quo.  There are two administration officials who dispute Bolton.  Remember if Bolton is right, Trump changed his mind plus Bondi already made the case Biden are corrupt.

The impeachment trial looking for impeachable offense may end shortly and I suspect even many Democrats privately will be relief it is over.  Adam Schiff may have made Trump even stronger with an acquittal. 

Schiff is a pathological liar.  For two plus years, he told America, that he had the proof of Trump collusion with Russia. Proven wrong. His own report debunked and discredited.  He lied at hearings at what Trump actually said and no one believes him that he doesn’t know the Whistleblower and even the Washington Post didn’t buy this.

Nancy Pelosi allowed Schiff to take the Democrats off the cliff and Democrats hatred of Trump has warped their own responses.

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 29, 2020)
Some impressions as the trial completes phase one and prepares for phase two:

1. The first take-away is the comparison between the two presentations. The House speakers were on a mission and they showed it. They were obviously playing to the television audience more than the senators. Their rhetoric was graphic, at times crude (particularly Mr. Naylor). Their tone was passionate, sometimes angry. Their body language was tense.ha
2. The exception was Mr. Schiff, who proved himself an effective and articulate advocate, who appeared convinced and convincing, especially in his opening summary. In his final speech, however, some of the earlier polish seemed to have worn off as he spoke of the President in personal and insulting terms, dripping with hatred.
3.  The President’s team overall was much cooler in manner, with the exception of Mr. Sekulow, who supplied the passion, sometimes slipping into anger. White House Counsel Patrick Capilione was quietly and rationally effective, in the sharpest contrast to the House team. I found his manner more effective than Sekulow’s. Anger in the Senate chamber seemed a bit out of place.
4. In terms of the arguments on their merits, I, like many others, found the House case full of assumptions, presumptions and very weak. Of course, I had the same reaction to the original testimony, so my reaction to the trial presentation which was derived from and actually re-used large portions of the House footage was not surprising.
5. The basic issue was the definition of “crime”. The House wants to call such terms as “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” crimes meeting the standard of the Constitution. That standard is admittedly brief – “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors”. However, the application of common sense to this description, as pointed out by the founders’ commentary, demands that “crimes” must be specific and provable. Otherwise, the charge is simply a matter of opinion and therefore indefensible. Such are the terms of the current articles approved by Democrat partisans in the House.
6. The President’s team had their moments. Particularly damning was the recitation of the case against Joseph and Hunter Biden. Three lawyers split the presentation into Overview (Jay Sekulow), Facts (Pam Bondi) and Conclusions (Eric Herschmann). It is hard to believe that the elder Mr. Biden can continue to attract support for his presidential bid after such a graphic, detailed and public recitation of the case against him.
7. Also notable was the presentation of Alan Dershowitz, who spoke to the constitutional standard of impeachment. His explanation was replete with citations and quotations and delivered in such a rapid-fire style that it was like trying to get a drink from a fire hose. The prominence of the speaker, however, added a certain level of authority to the argument. In view of his status as a lifelong Democrat, it is doubtful that his performance swayed any Democrats.
8. Today’s defense of the President ended with a plea to the Senators from Mr. Capilione to preserve for the American people the right to vote for their president, and to vote “for what in your heart you know is right”. As one of the commentators observed, however, politicians rarely vote what is in their hearts, preferring to vote for their best political advantage – a cynical remark which is unfortunately all too often true.

The overall impression of this entire exercise appears to be a gigantic waste of time and resources because the entire body of the Senate knew the outcome before the whole drama began. Namely, they will almost all vote the party line, and nothing said in this whole charade will change more than a few votes.
The only true exceptions to this outcome will be those politicians who believe that they cannot be re-elected if they vote with the party or have already decided not to run again.
This whole business has to be changed to accurately reflect the momentous responsibility involved in an impeachment vote for both the immediate present and future American generations. I don’t know how that can be accomplished, but it is imperative that this process not be allowed to destroy America’s electoral process.

Notes of the Senate impeachment trial -#1The rules for impeachment must be changed to save the Republic

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 22, 2020) 1.                 Definitions: “crime”, “evidence”It appears that the most basic differences between the two sides in the impeachment trial revolve around the definitions of two terms: “crime” and “evidence”. a.     The President’s team insists that the Constitution language “bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors” requires that impeachment can be carried forward only if there is an act which breaks a recognizable law, in other words, a “crime” as normally defined. This can be considered a technical definition of “crime”.   b.     The House definition of “crime” includes “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”, neither of which is recognized as a crime in either legal or common usage. The problem with both these terms is that they are too vague to be enforceable. That means that both terms can be used to mean whatever the author wants them to mean and therefore no defense is possible. The confrontation is simply one opinion against the other. c.     The analysis of the definition of “evidence” is similar. In a court of law, there is a clear definition of the “rules of evidence”. These “rules” disqualify hearsay (“second hand”) testimony. Only knowledge obtained by personal communication, whether spoken or written, is admissible as “evidence”. Since there is NO testimony from 16 of the 17 witnesses in this case which is not hearsay, there is NO “evidence” that the opinions presented by these witnesses are admissible. The one exception was Mr. Gordon Sondland who did in fact ask the President what he wanted from the Ukraine. The President’s answer was, “I want nothing from the Ukraine”. Thus, the sole direct evidence in all the House testimony undercuts the House case. 2.                Dems’ expectations re: witnesses & documentsThe Dems’ insistence on “witnesses and documents” has a serious chance of backfiring on the House allegations.  a.Witnesses1)     In the first place, they wish to call John Bolton to testify in the expectation that he will collaborate their assumption that the President was guilty of illegitimate behavior. However, this assumption is based on Bolton’s statement that he has knowledge that has not yet surfaced in the House inquiry. He has NOT indicated what that knowledge is, or whether it hurts or helps the President. The expectation that Bolton will help the House case may be wildly mistaken. 2)    The President will insist that “comparable witness” be named by the President for each named by the House. Almost certainly, this would include Hunter Biden. The rationale is this: if the investigation of the Biden family’s corruption is justified as a legitimate endeavor which does in fact implicate both Biden’s (father and son), then the President’s mention of it to President Zelensky is justified.  3)    Finally, the assumption that the President was sufficiently frightened by Biden Senior’s presidential campaign to commit extortion would then be revealed as ridiculous. A byproduct of this testimony might well be the destruction of Joe Biden’s presidential aspirations. b.     The other issue is the documents demand. At this stage of the process, where does the time come from to study and analyze thousands of pages of documents from the various executive departments? It is unlikely that either side would suspend the trial for a few weeks to allow for that exercise. The President’s counsel would claim that this is further proof that the House did not prepare adequately for trial. In other words, if the House had wanted these documents, they should have fought for their release in court.  c.     In passing, it should be noted that the Schumer strategy of causing apparently fruitless delays has what the TV people call “terrible optics”. Millions of viewers are finding the procedure itself boring enough without the Minority Leader insisting on one useless roll call after another, deep into the night hours. 3.                Party line voting – extremely dangerousFinally, one fact that those roll calls do establish is that the result in case after case is a strictly party line vote. This fact suggests that the final result may follow the same pattern with a few inconsequential exceptions. It thus becomes clear that, no matter who says what, the criterion for the vote which counts the most has nothing to do with all the rhetoric about preserving the Constitution and the rule of law. The world’s greatest deliberative body is voting on the most important matter each member will probably ever face on the basis of party loyalty. Thus, if the Senate were in Democrat hands today, the Republican president would be removed from office, no matter how weak the case is against him. Would the Republicans act any differently if the shoe were on the other foot? Very doubtful. Our democracy is thus thirteen votes away from an oligarchy.  4.               The rules for impeachment must be updated or our right to elect the president will be lost, because any time both houses of Congress are of one party and the presidency of the other party, that president can be impeached without cause at any time.

This must not stand! (continued) The rules for impeachment must be changed to save the Republic

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 14, 2020) In my last column of this topic, I urged the President to sue the House of Representatives for malfeasance on the basis of two unconstitutional actions with regard to the recent articles of impeachment passed by the House: 1) denial of due process as protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments in a procedure which, if upheld by the US Senate, would inflict irreparable harm on the plaintiff by depriving him of his livelihood, reputation and public office, and 2) by re-defining the Constitutional designation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the sole rationale for impeachment to includea) allegations based on hearsay evidence which are too broad to be provable (“abuse of power”) andb) designation of the time-honored practice of Executive Privilege as “obstruction of justice”. I have since been advised that, while these arguments may have merit, the Roberts Supreme Court has shown itself too timid to adjudicate balance of power issues if there is any other option available. In this case, such an option exists in the ambiguity of the constitutional language concerning impeachment. It is therefore unlikely to accept this case. While I am still an advocate of testing the strategy above, it seems wise to state the case in a broader context. What follows is a case for changing the rules of impeachment – by whatever means. This case stands even if the current impeachment reaches and is resolved by the Senate. The rules must be changed for all future adventures of this kind. The facts: ·        The impeachment actions of both 1999 (versus William Jefferson Clinton) and 2019 (versus Donald John Trump) have proven that both Republican and Democrat members of both Houses of Congress cast their votes primarily along party lines rather than on the merits of the case as envisioned by the Constitution. The threats:·        This fact can only be interpreted as leading to a change in the governmental structure of the United States of America from a republic to a parliamentary system, where the president serves at the pleasure of the Congress. The “will of the people” as currently implemented by the Electoral College – which follows the votes of respective states – will therefore become moot in the case where one party controls the presidency and the other the Congress. If the Congress does not agree with the President, they can impeach and convict him on any basis that is handy.     ·         If the president in such a case were so inclined, he might resist being removed from office by exercising his authority as Commander-in-Chief, declaring martial law and calling up the military to enforce it. Presto! The USA is now a banana republic whose government is beholden to the military and one inch away from dictatorship. The solution:·        The current rules for the impeachment process must change. Congress has again proven that it is not capable of providing a just and morally defensible procedure for impeaching a president. ·        Justification: When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were passed in the eighteenth century, none of the institutions which are now integral to our government even existed. The United States itself barely existed. There were no political parties, no Supreme Court, no Senate, no House of Representatives, and the President was the hero of the Revolutionary War, a soldier and farmer, not a politician. They had no earthly idea what an impeachment should look like. ·        So, we need a new set of rules for the impeachment process. How do we get these new rules? The easiest way would be to have the Supreme Court rule AGAINST certain features of current practice – e.g. there must be proof of a crime, guilt must be established by the standard rules of evidence, disagreements about the exercise of Executive Privilege must be adjudicated by the Supreme Court (on an expedited basis), penalties for perjury must be enforced – in other words, the Clinton impeachment protocol could be established as standard. ·        The other means are more complicated (e.g. a constitutional convention), less reliable (e.g. a new law passed by Congress and signed by the president), or more protracted (e.g. a Constitutional Amendment).    My concern is not to protect the current president. Rather, I am looking for a means to protect the nation from partisan usurpation of ultimate power, which this case portends if allowed to stand. Partisanship has proven to be an effective means for limiting the power of one group or view of specific issues from dominating our government. It is not, however, a useful basis for taking over the government, and the last two impeachment cases have shown that partisan loyalty, not pursuit of justice, has governed the votes of the members of both Houses of Congress. Our democratic elections are thus based on this very fragile foundation. A new set of rules has to be developed and adopted in order to preserve our democracy — whether by the Supreme Court, a Constitutional Convention, legislation, or a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we could be witnessing the beginning of the end of checks and balances.  We cannot let this happen. But, if the current House impeachment process is allowed to stand as the prevailing precedent, our democratic elections are doomed to fall. © 2020 Richfield Press. All rights reserved.

‌