IS THIS AN IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP OR IS IT OF THE DEMOCRATS?

Let’s see what the articles of President Trump’s impeachment are:

(1) The first allegation is that he exercised the powers of his public office to "obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest", by allegedly putting pressure on Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

THE TRUTH: the Democrats abused their powers of Congress to obtain an improper political benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest by blatantly conducting an impeachment hoax to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

(2) The second allegation is that "when he was caught, when the House investigated and opened an impeachment inquiry, President Trump engaged in unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry", thereby obstructing Congress.

THE TRUTH: when the Democrats’ hoax was called out, when not a single shred of evidence was produced in the inquiry to prove wrongdoing, the House continued with their impeachment inquiry, proceeding with their unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the constitution thereby obstructing justice and the executive power of the President.

POLITICAL OPINION

THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
The Aftermath

IS TRUMP GUILTY OF QUID PRO QUO?

The short answer is: of course there is “quid pro quo” in the sense that there is an exchange of favours. But that is not saying very much: if Trump is guilty of quid pro quo in this way, so am I and so is everyone else. All of us indulge in exchanges of favours every single day. Also, no country gives aid for free, they want something back! So, the impeachment inquiry should not have wasted its time trying to establish what is already self-evident - that there is “quid pro quo”. But the real question is: what kind of quid pro quo?

First we must realise that there are actually 2 meanings of quid pro quo. 

Originally, quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) is a Latin phrase used in English to literally mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor".” This is the COMMON-MEANING quid pro quo and this has no legal liability. This will describe almost all human transactions from the most trivial to the most important warranted government actions between two states. Countries exchange favours all the time in common-meaning quid pro quo. Country A aids Country B to keep Country B in its political sphere of influence against their common enemies as well as cooperate in various ways where such opportunities arise. This innocuous arrangement is purely political and would not be a problem because it is not considered criminal or legally objectionable. 

On the other hand, there is a different LEGAL-MEANING quid pro quo which has legal liability. In common law quid pro quo, it indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually WHEN THE PROPRIETY OR EQUITY OF THE TRANSACTION IS IN QUESTION. Yes, as in the common meaning, it is an exchange of favours, but it must be an unlawful or corrupted exchange of favours. For example, if Country A provided secret aid or a bribe to Country B disguised as official aid in exchange for Country B’s interference in the domestic politics of Country A, then a crime would have been committed. 

Now, is the quid pro quo that Trump and Zelensky are engaging the common-meaning quid pro quo or the legal-meaning quid pro quo? 

Well, the release of aid to Ukraine and the request for assistance in the investigation of corruption in the 2016 Russian hoax and in Burisma both seem lawful and warranted. That’s because the money Ukraine got is not a bribe paid to its leader , but much-needed funds for fighting Russia and the investigations are necessary and consistent with both Zelensky’s and Trump’s campaign promises to eradicate domestic corruption. So, it looks more like common-meaning quid pro quo.

Yes, if Ukraine’s help uncovered solid evidence of DNC’s hand in the Russian hoax or if the corruption of the Bidens in Burisma is confirmed, then that would help Trump in his 2020 re-election. But given that Ukraine’s help in these investigations is to uncover corruption, not to engage in criminal activity, then their assistance is inherently lawful. The aid provided by Trump to Zelensky is not a secret bribe, but lawful aid already approved by Congress. Contrast this with Joe Biden withholding US$1b in aid to Ukraine to force the firing of their Prosecutor General who was investigating Burisma and his son. Now, that is inherently unlawful and therefore that is legal-meaning quid pro quo.

Let me also address the issue of generic and specific favours. It appears during the inquiry that favours if generic is ok, but not ok if specific. I think there is no difference between the two and it is understandable that, in this case, the favours should be specific because the US is only interested in cases that affect its politics. The specificity of the favours does not affect their criminality.

We definitely can’t say that all quid pro quo of whatever kind are wrong; or else all human transactions of any kind are wrong and that is absurd.

In the final analysis, this whole saga of Trump providing aid, whether delayed or not, with a concomitant promise of help from Zelensky in uncovering corruption by Americans does not qualify as liable legal-meaning quid pro quo. To impeach Trump, quid pro quo is not enough, it must be CRIMINAL quid pro quo. Any political gain Trump gets if both corruption cases are proven is only incidental. It is also deserved because his political opponents have committed crimes and they should be punished both at the law courts as well as at the ballot box.

Democracy’s Fatal Moment

Whichever way we turn,

Old societies crack and burn.

Violent protests here and there,

Disagreement everywhere.

Molotov cocktails, guns and knives,

Conflict becomes our daily lives.

Logic and reason we don’t care,

Fighting a war we won’t declare.

Out there in the streets,

Online and in our tweets,

In Congress and in the Parliament, 

This is democracy’s fatal moment.

IMP PEACH MEN*

They ignore quid pro quo Joe,
But pretend to be Trump’s foe.
Oh sorry, the truth cannot be told,
They are the Hunter of your soul.

Chairman and Speaker full of lies,
Pushing wannabes, leakers and spies.
Doing a circus show only they believe
In a sick parody of Adam and Eve.


*Footnote: The title of this poem “Imp Peach Men” refers to people who outwardly appear excellent, but are, in fact, little devils.

IS THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY FOR REAL?

Lately, we have been bombarded with much publicity about the climate emergency.

However, on 23 Sept 2019, Mr António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, received a registered letter from a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields. Led by Dutch engineer, Professor Guus Berkhout, they proclaimed  in a “European Climate Declaration” that there is actually no climate emergency!

They informed the UN that the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are so immature that they are unfit for their purpose and therefore, they constitute unsound science.  Further, the unrealistic economics behind the unnecessary attempts at mitigation of climate change will result in much harm. Climate change action will squander away trillions of dollars while putting many lives at risk by making affordable energy unavailable to poorer countries.

They also proposed that the UN organise with them “a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020.”

In conclusion, the group made six statements which challenge the position on climate science and climate policy as held by the UN’s IPCC, the mainstream media and young climate activists:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming, but for the most part of Earth’s history, it naturally cooled and warmed.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted, so we are far from understanding climate change.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models which are not plausible policy tools.
4. CO2 is a beneficial plant food, the basis of all life on Earth and therefore is not a pollutant.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters; conversely, some CO2-mitigation measures can be costly and harmful.
6. Climate policy must respect the scientific and economic realities that tell us that there is no climate emergency.

It appears that there is still much diametric disagreement within the climate science community itself over climate change. It will be all the  more difficult for the public to be convinced of the truth and the urgency of the climate emergency especially if the IPCC and its proxy activists are reluctant to confront  dissenting fellow scientists with historical evidence, empirical data and good scientific logic.

THE CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION 

OF JOE BIDEN

                                                                                

        If investigating a presidential candidate         

            is  always  wrong and is  assumed              

                to  be   politically  motivated,                 

                   then the investigation of                      

                       candidate    Trump                           

                           must   clearly                               

                              be wrong.                                  

                                   too                                        

                                     !                                          

                                                                                

Both are presidential candidates.

Both are or were political office bearers.

If investigating Candidate Trump is permissible,

Then investigating Candidate Biden is also permissible.

But, if investigating Candidate Biden is permissible, 

Then President Trump would have done no wrong. 

And if President Trump has done no wrong,

Then President Trump should not be investigated.

Vice-President Biden should still be investigated

Because he still has a case to answer.

THAT UKRAINE PHONE CALL
Trump Exonerated!
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/snippets-from-trumps-conversation-with-ukrainian-president-urging-biden-inquiry

Trump asked for 2 favours:

One is for Ukraine to help provide information to his AG and his personal lawyer, Mr Giuliani, about an alleged incriminating DNC server which the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike failed to seize after their investigations in 2016 and its possible connection to the origins of the Mueller-disproven Russian collusion scam.

The new Ukrainian President, Mr Zelensky, replied that he would investigate, not only as a favour to Mr Trump, but for himself as he expressed the desire to start a new Government that conducts itself openly and candidly and in cooperation with the US.

Trump’s second favour (“the other thing”) is for Ukraine to investigate the truth of the former Vice-President, Mr Biden’s open bragging about himself stopping the prosecution of his son’s alleged corruption, and then to provide information to his AG.

The Ukrainian President replied that indeed he has personal knowledge about Biden’s case. Not only is he going to provide information to Trump’s AG, in turn, he requested Trump to provide any additional information Trump may have to him. He said that investigating this case will help in his own mission to restore honesty in his country by ensuring that justice is administered.

So, this is what the phone call was about. Unlike the Clinton Foundation’s “pay for play” and Mr Biden’s quid pro quo (Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour".), there is absolutely no such nonsense here. It was about two presidents trying to restore political honesty and integrity in their own countries through open cooperation. No money, goods, services or anything of value changed hands.

It is nothing like what the New York Times’ intentional mischaracterisation of Trump of having “repeatedly prodded Ukraine’s new leader” to investigate his Democratic political rival Joe Biden for political gain. Read the transcript yourself.

STARING AT ...

Staring at the ceiling,

Devoid of pain or feeling.

Wondering as I tilt my eyes -

Will heaven ever sympathise?

Staring at the wall,

Its blank whiteness says it all.

Not a shadow or a sound, 

Just old familiar ground.

Staring at the floor,

Ants crawling I habitually ignore.

Their blood, sweat and tears,

Recklessly trampled over the years.

Staring at of the window,

Waiting for the next blow.

Yet, any illness or disappointment

Won’t deny this golden moment.

IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY MOTHER

17 June 1930 - 29 August 2012 (7th Anniversary)

Final Demolition Of The Ridiculous Climate Change Scam

For CO2 to be a problem, all three of the following statements must be true:
(1) Temperatures must follow CO2 concentrations; in other words, CO2 must ‘drive’ global temperatures. 

Yet, historical records show the opposite: that it is actually CO2 that follows changes in temperatures.

(2) The ice core record of CO2 must reflect what is in the atmosphere at the time stipulated. 

Yet, the ice core CO2 is wrong because it is not consistent with plant stomata CO2 records.

(3) Most or all of the recent CO2 increase must have been caused by us. 

Yet, the fact is that man-made CO2 emissions is only 38 gigatons per year compared to natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation and from the oceans of 770 gigatons per year. That works out that only 4.7% of CO3 emissions comes from humans. This coupled with the actual fact that CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is only 5.3 years, means that human contribution to CO2’s alleged effect on temperature rise must be quite negligible! Further, if CO2’s rise from 280ppm to 415ppm in the industrial period by 135ppm is really all caused by humans and the temperature has risen by only 0.8 degree Celsius, then the climate sensitivity to CO2 must be pretty low anyway.

Conclusion

All three statements are false and therefore this whole vicious Global Warming/Climate Change scam must be exposed for what it is.