She Said What?

In a recent article about Republicans trying to make in-roads on union blue-collar support one particular Republican made a statement illustrating the basic misunderstanding of what is actually good for people.

Not just blue-collar union workers, but everyone when we consider climate change and the effect on the planet.

In lockstep with the party line, Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) said, “Putting climate change policies over people is absolutely ridiculous, and we cannot stand for it.” (Republicans squeeze Democrats on labor as UAW strike explodes in Michigan – POLITICO)

Um, aren’t people and the health of the environment—a necessary element for human survival—exactly what “climate change” policies are designed to protect? Otherwise, we can wait until Earth’s climate reflects the one on Venus and see how that works out.

The UAW should do all it can to support their union members in this struggle against what is fair and equitable wages and benefits. That does not mean there has to be a choice between dealing with climate change and preserving union jobs.

(Another discussion might be to focus on the salaries of executives and how they have grown over the years compared to workers’ salaries, but that is for another time—but just so you know, one exec at GM earns $111,000 a day)

Throughout the past several decades we have progressed from leaded to unleaded fuels, added catalytic converters, increased fuel economy dramatically, and the big three are still here churning out cars despite all the catastrophic warnings about each of these measures.

But let me get back to Rep. Lisa McClain from Michigan. Apparently she never saw a picture of Los Angeles back in the 70s when smog obscured the entire city, mostly due to car exhaust fumes.

Yet, true to form, she takes the issue of fairness and equity in labor negotiations and somehow links this to Democratic efforts at combatting climate change and the rise of electric cars made by workers with non-union wages then blames these efforts for the loss of union jobs.

If she was really interested in supporting union positions she ought to look at those companies who fight off union representation through so-called right to work statutes. What she conveniently leaves out is the anti-union, pro-management, profit over people policy systemic to Republican administrations.

But the real point is, she’d like to ignore the reality of anthropomorphic climate effect and turn it into purely political issue that depends on the willful ignorance of those who might agree with her. (Or perhaps she is one of the equally ill-informed.)

The fact is the planet has suffered through some of the hottest periods on record that far exceed the cyclical nature of warming and cooling periods documented in the geological record. The evidence is clear and convincing that the severity and rapidity of this change is amplified by human actions. The biggest culprit, fossil fuels.

One cannot ignore an inconvenient truth.

Let me remind you what the Representative said.

“Putting climate change policies over people is absolutely ridiculous, and we cannot stand for it.”

Anyone with any common sense knows what she should have said was this.

“We must balance climate change policies with human economic need or we will not survive.”

But as a strong supporter of unions, I wouldn’t put much hope in Republicans embracing labor over the stock market. 

Now I Understand Trigger Warnings (Not the Gun Kind)

Please share on social media.

There is a commercial running on various streaming services which causes me great distress. Without the benefit of any trigger warning—which now make eminent sense to me—I was traumatized and thrust back into one of the most disheartening and tragic events of my youth.

First, a little background.

When was eight or nine years old, my father, then a member of the Rhode Island State Police, acquired, through the generosity of a supporter of the members of that organization, a pass to Lincoln Park. This was a Rocky Point-like amusement park located in exotic Massachusetts near Fall River. I don’t t recall the exact location (likely a protective measure of my subconscious to ameliorate the painful memories.)

At this park, there was a ride only big kids like me could ride. My siblings weren’t ever close to being eligible. The one issue standing between me and the glory of commanding my own vehicle was the height requirement.

Each year for what seem like forever I would look forward to the park because this was the year, only to have my hopes dashed as I failed to measure up.

One year, I was within an inch. Clearly, next year was my year.

All through the Fall into Winter and Spring I would measure the change in me. By the summer I had added two inches. This was indeed my moment in the sun.

I can still recall the Friday night when my father came home with the pass (it was shared among the troopers with children) and the excitement began to build. I am certain I didn’t sleep that night, envisioning racing around the track, driving that car, achieving my dream.

The ride to the park that Saturday seemed interminable. The roads were longer, slower, and jammed with traffic. Sitting in the rear-facing seat of our Country Squire station wagon, my legs bounced in anticipation.

Then, the moment arrived. We pulled into the lot, walked to the entrance, my father produced the pass, and we were in.

I can still hear my mother’s voice fading in the distance as I ran to the ride. “Waiiiiiit for us…….”

I didn’t. This was my year!

They found me standing in disbelief next to the measuring stick. I was more than tall enough. I was more than ready. I was more than prepared.

What I was not prepared for was the other sign. Closed for repairs.

My heart sunk in my chest. My hopes melted in that hot summer sun. All the anticipation was for nothing.

But, somehow, I remained an optimist. There would be other years. There would be another day to claim my glory.

My hope never faded.

The park, which had given me so many years of pleasure, moments of anticipation, and dreams of what it would be like, closed the following year.

So next time somebody puts something on that reignites that disappointment in me, I will not be responsible for my actions.

You must be this tall, damn you fate!

JEBWizard Publishing ( is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publish

Another Open Letter to Joe Biden

Dear President Joe Biden,

I’ve written to you in the past in this form of an open letter. (Promise Me, Joe) and I am compelled to write once more.

The time has come for a new generation to rise to the occasion. You have said this yourself as I will remind you in this piece. Now is the time to put those words into actions.

Now is the time, Mr. President, now is the time.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;

Pete Seeger, Turn, Turn, Turn! (or Ecclesiastes 3-1 if you prefer)

But first, let me say this.

Thank you. Thank you for restoring sensibilities in government. Thank you for rebuilding America’s standing in the world. Thank you for leading the world coalition supporting the Ukraine.

Thank you for leading the country out of the disaster of the pandemic. And thank you for putting an end to our presence in Afghanistan. Anyone who understands the reality of that commitment knows it was the right thing to do no matter how ugly it may have appeared.

Thank you for what you have done for this country. I only wish your opportunity had come sooner.

But there is what we want and what we have and that reality is what we deal with.

I heard you speak once after the release of your book, Promise Me, Dad. One thing you said, that brought to mind the Camelot of the Kennedy years, was it is time for a new generation to assume the mantle. 

You were right.

Yet when circumstances arose, with no one stepping up, you did. Again.

You were there in our time of desperate need for a return to stability. And while the danger has not fully passed, time has.

Now is the moment for you to make your mark as one of our greatest Presidents. One who rose to the occasion as history demanded then recognized the limitations of that commitment.

Go out, find that new blood, and push them to meet destiny as you have.

Turn your words into more than a speech. Encourage this new generation, following your example, to set a new course with a new leader at the helm.

Don’t let the country merely vote against the disaster from our past, give them a choice with a limitless future.

Do this, and there is no doubt that future historians will mark this moment as another example of true American courage.


Joe Broadmeadow

“It Is (Always) About the Money”

Please share and comment, it’s how we all can learn something about each other.

“Follow the Money”

Deepthroat (FBI source to Woodward and Bernstein about watergate)

What was true then is still true today. The love of money (aka power) is the root of all evil.

I’ve been struggling trying to understand the MAGA phenomenon. Not the fanatical average kind of people who are desperate for what they perceive as a better past—which has some validity, as I will explain—but the powerful, uber-wealthy who continue (at least so far) supporting the former President.

And it really is simple: it is all about the money. The conservative, Christian, family values, apple pie, and baseball moniker is a smoke-screen. If they could monetize abortion there would be a clinic inside every fast food place in the country.

The reality is they do not care about the people they pander to, but they do value them as a commodity to be exploited.

Now, while I am about to throw out many numbers, the math is elementary. Evidence of their level of care is reflected in the minimum wage.

In 1956, the year I was born, the minimum wage was $0.25/hour. The equivalent of $9.81 in today’s dollars when adjusted for inflation.

As the graphic below illustrates, to match the purchasing power of $100.00 in 1956 in today’s dollars one would need $1124.00.

In 1971, the year I started working (washing dishes at the Admiral Inn restaurant in Cumberland, RI) the minimum wage was $1.60. The equivalent of $10.57 in today’s dollars.

And minimum wage was the result of union demand and government action, not corporate empathy with the working man. This piece isn’t the place for it, but I bet you could track the decline in the value of minimum wage over the years with a decline in union membership. I’ll save that for another time.

YearMinimum Wage $ Equivalent 2023 dollars

The current wage remains at $7.25, the longest period of time since an adjustment. How many people working the same job as in 2009 are earning the same amount of money today? (if you are, you need a union.)

Adjusted for inflation, the buying power of one hour of labor in 1956 is equal to $81.48 in today’s dollars. In other words, to achieve the same buying power of one hour of work in 1956, someone has to work 11.23 hours.

According to federal guidelines, the poverty level for a family of two is $16,500.00. Working full-time, 40 hours X 52 weeks, would earn $15,080.00. Wouldn’t the term “minimum” imply at least exceeding the poverty level?

Wouldn’t their family-values concept of one working parent one stay-at-home parent demand it?

Now the most common argument is we do not intend minimum wage for those out in the workforce supporting families, these are entry-level positions.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, accept that premise. Isn’t fair to say that, given that entry level people should earn a comparable wage to those in 1956, minimum wage should have at least paced inflation? It has not.

The missing part of the argument that the intent of minimum wage is just entry level, which diminishes its validity, is the cost of that labor to the companies paying it.

In 1956 employers paid $0.25 minimum wage as a cost of doing business. Today it is $7.25. If we look at the numbers a different way (1 hour of work in 1956 is equal to $81.48 in today’s dollars) the cost of one hour’s labor to an employer is 8% of what it was in 1956.

In 2009, the last time the minimum wage was raised. $7.25 was comparable to $10.33 in today’s dollars. A dollar today buys only 70.184% of what it could in 2009. Are you earning the equivalent of 30% less than you did in 2009? Again, if you are call the AFL-CIO.

So the big question is why?

Here lies the absolute truth in the admonition, “follow the money.” Most Republicans, and a significant number of Democrats, are under the control of big business and well-funded PACs. The Citizen’s United decision (read about it here) enslaved our government to those with the money to fund elections and seek concessions.

They’ll take your $5.00 and $10.00 contributions, then inundate you with requests for more because “your voice matters.” But your voice will be overwhelmed by a sea of zeroes separated by commas into groups of three. Politicians are like dancers at a strip club (so I’ve heard.) Wave a $1.00 bill, you’ll attract some, maybe. Wave a $100 bill, you’ll attract them all. Wave a couple of million, you bought the club.

Most MAGA supporters are being fooled into thinking Mr. Trump is the champion of the little guy. He had four years, with an initially friendly Congress, to raise the minimum wage yet did nothing. But he did cut taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals.

Has any of that trickled down?

Those who are sending in their $5, $10, $25 contributions (mostly to pay legal bills from his insurrection adventure not fund a reelection campaign) can’t see their own buying power sacrificed to the altar of corporate profits.

Clearly, big business has a vested interest in a more compliant Congress and White House, Biden’s support of an immediate $15.00 minimum wage increase rising to $17.25 in 2025 is anathema to their bottom line.

The wealth gap, the difference between the amount of wealth held by a small percentage of people and the rest of Americans, has grown every year since the Reagan decade. The ratio of CEO compensation to worker compensation has grown astronomically.

So all you have to do is follow the money. Right now, Mr. Trump poses a quandary for those in the upper echelons of the wealthy minority and PAC managers. If convicted he cannot offer them anything. So for now they are hedging their bets.

But just monitor where the corporate and PAC donations head, both at the national level for President and the more local Congressional races, and you’ll be able to figure out who is in their grasp and who is not.

Another of the arguments in support of Mr. Trump is he is an outsider, a business man who will bring a business-like approach to government. I suppose if chaos is a successful business plan, January 2017 to January 2021 was a resounding success. In particular, the “peaceful” celebration of the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021.

Plus, an in-depth look at his business history (who bankrupts a Casino?) shows a less than stellar success pattern.

…there are more demons who seek the Presidency than there are saviors.

Joe Bradmeadow

Nothing should be more of a warning against electing someone to national office than the idea they are “business” oriented. Business is necessary and an elemental part of capitalism. But those in government should work towards balancing the common good of the people against those who seek only to profit at their expense. They must not think of government as a zero sum game where profit is the goal.

If we need to “Make America Great Again” wouldn’t a good start be to bring the minimum wage up to a level equal to 1956? If the nostalgia for those days is a justification for anything, that would be a grand gesture.

And it is time for change.

The infusion of fresh blood, so desperately needed, can address the more complicated issues, the incestuous nature of politicians, money, and influence.

And don’t construe this as a petition for socialism. Capitalism is the basis for the most powerful economy the world has ever seen as long as there is a check and balance by sound government oversight.

Government is not designed to run business. Business is not designed to govern a country. But combined, they form the foundation of a truly great nation if properly balanced.

While I believe there is no other choice than supporting the current President in a repeat of the 2020 election, out of a country of 300 million people there has to be someone with at least more dependable longevity we can look to for leadership at the national level.

Government is not designed to run business. Business is not designed to govern a country.

I once heard Joe Biden speak at an event celebrating the release of his book, Promise Me, Dad. This was at the time when he had decided not to run for President in 2016. One of the points he made that night was it was time for the next generation.

I think, because of the Trump years, he saw no one rising to the occasion and made his decision to run. But I truly believe he would have stepped aside for a viable candidate. We need that candidate soon, because there are more demons who seek the Presidency than there are saviors.

As it stands right now, Congress and the Presidency inhabit the most exclusive nursing home in the world. We should not be a country on life-support in a dangerous world.

JEBWizard Publishing ( is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at or 401-533-3988.

If It Was Voluntary, Why Expect Forgiveness?

Please share on social media, it is through open discussion we learn understanding.

A recent news story reignited a spark of outrage about a contemporary issue; the idea of “forgiving” student debt.

I’ve written about this before (read it here) and thought a recent Supreme Court decision had laid the issue to rest, but alas it rises again. (I leave the genesis and motivation of the court case for another argument.)

Now, the act of forgiveness is an honorable concept, yet is generally reserved for when someone wrongs another person or group. The proposal here is to “forgive” student loans because of the crushing debt it imposes on those who incurred it. Where is the wrong in this matter? What are we forgiving, poor decisions? Buyer’s remorse? The sting of reality?

Any harm here was self-inflicted. Regret alone is not a valid reason for seeking absolution. One must accept responsibility for one’s own actions, not seek to take advantage of other’s eleemosynary inclinations. (Use your degree to figure out the meaning. See if it worked.)

On September 1st, the moratorium on accruing interest on these loans ends and payment will once again resume. The Biden administration is seeking an end run around the court decision to accomplish their original goals.

I won’t revisit all the arguments for and against such policies. Instead, I just want to talk about my gut reaction.


There, I feel better.

The estimated cost of this program is $400,000,000,000 (4 × 1011)for you math majors.) Last I heard, the administration had set aside $95,000,000 (95 × 106) for aid to the devastation on Maui. A bit incongruous don’t you think? Offering the equivalent of 0.0002375% of the money earmarked for people who created their own problem to people who suffered loss and tragedy through no fault of their own.

It is un-American.

Again, wtf!

Now, if the President were to propose a policy linking forgiveness to joining the military or the Peace Corps, agreeing to become a teacher, police officer, or other public safety professional, or committing to some form of long-term public service—helping rebuild Lahaina, Maui perhaps—I would be inclined to agree with a graduated reduction of student debt for such a commitment.

Even a long term proposal to pay for education at a public college is worth discussion, but not an ex post facto implementation. Write a law, let Congress debate it, and then pass it or not but make it a public discourse.

But a carte blanche elimination of a debt incurred voluntarily with public funds, with no obligation to provide any contribution to society other than paying taxes, is a step too far. Everyone who either paid their loans or never took them out in the first place did deserves equal treatment and timing shouldn’t be an element of that equality.


Emphasis Author

The idea that we should pay the cost of education for someone who earned a degree with no intention of doing anything but getting a better job than they might with a high school diploma is inherently unfair.

We guarantee the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit part is guaranteed, the success of this is not.

I will bet anyone who took out a loan to start a business or mortgage to buy a house understood they could not rely on the banks “forgiving” those loans as a sound financial plan. They entered these agreements voluntarily with the full knowledge they would have to be repaid or they would face consequences.

The same holds for those who voluntarily took the loans to go to school.

If you needed the education to secure a job and build a career, then this is a responsibility you incurred and a choice you made.

If your plan involved hoping the government would step in and make this obligation go away, it shows a character flaw. And it is a poor plan.

Responsible people abide by their obligations, they don’t seek to use other people’s money to do it for them.

The government is here to provide for the safety and security of the governed, not to pay their voluntarily incurred bills because they are burdensome.

JEBWizard Publishing ( is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at or 401-533-3988.

T-Minus Three Days to a Large Number Two

Please share with others, it is how we gain understanding of each other.

We are about to restart a cycle that will comprise approximately seven thousand (7000) changes of a wearable item done seven to ten times per day. The contents of which will go from an unearthly color and the consistency of material seen in the Exorcist to something you would avoid stepping on in the street. You’d also fret how it got there, but that is beside the point.

This time, we are more prepared to endure the process. Practice does indeed work. It has been months since I last improperly placed my hand within the target area of the pliable container.

I’ve even become fairly competent at remembering what the color-coded stripe on the front shows, whether it has accomplished its purpose. Yellow is good, blue means something lurks inside. Could be just trapped liquid. Could be something more nefarious.

I am, of course, referring to the imminent arrival of grandson #2. All indications are he is going to be a big one.

Grandson #1, Levi David, has served as an admirable training instructor, teaching us the ins and outs of caring for an infant. He has begun shedding the need for the waste containment system.

We are working on the basics right now, aiming, equipment control and care, adequate warning time to prepare the Mickey Mouse festooned receptive device complete with flushing sound effects and an applause button.

We may have to change the batteries before the end of the training period as the applause button has been pushed an equivalent number of times to the toilet flushes at an NFL game at half-time.

And, of course, I am teaching him the one practice that will make his life almost completely free of trauma and make him happy forever, put the seat down after you’re done!

But the process is amusing. And he is ready to become the big brother. An awesome responsibility! You are almost entirely responsible for the success of your siblings. I know this from personal experience. Even if it goes unappreciated.

And so we will welcome a whole new person into the family. The same sense of newness will permeate his days. Everything for the coming moments will work to teaching him the ways, sights, and sounds of the world he will soon join.

There will, of course, be a book, Oh Brother! I Have a Brother and one to complement Levi’s book, Mortimer Moose and the Alphabet Zoo.

Wait, what? You haven’t ordered this yet for the young kids in the family? Here’s the link for your convenience (Click here, you’ll be glad you did)

But I can never capture the actual story in words.

To look into the eyes of a newborn is to see love.

To hold such a marvelous being in your arms is to feel love.

To watch them grow and change before your eyes is to know love.

Life does not have any better moments than those. I am excited beyond (almost) words.

Since Levi, life has taken an amazing turn for the better. Not that it was bad before, but there is something magical about grandchildren. You get to watch them grow and change right before your eyes. Life often hides this from parents who have other concerns while raising children.

I cannot imagine how much fun having two will be. Well, I can and I am already making plans.

Levi David is ready. We are ready. The whole world is ready.

Let the adventure begin!

JEBWizard Publishing ( is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at or 401-533-3988.

Deja Vu on Steroids

Please share on social media, the more we discuss the better we understand each other

From the years 1973 and 1974, I have vivid memories of watching the Watergate Hearings with friends (on a black & white TV where we had to plan our time to be there, no such thing as DVR or on demand.)

The story, by its very nature, was all-consuming of the public’s attention. These were the days before a continuous 24/7 Breaking News cycle when the words “We interrupt the broadcast” actually meant something.

Today, every lead story, even if it is a continuation of the previous day’s news cycle, is breaking news.

The drama of a sitting US President being subjected to the possibility of impeachment—the idea of criminal charges wasn’t even a thought outside of impeachment—was an enormously troubling consideration.

No matter how one felt about Nixon—there was plenty besides Watergate to cause such feelings, there were also some significant accomplishments by him—his actions caused him to lose what should have been rock solid support in the Senate and the House.

There’s a story, perhaps apocryphal, perhaps not, about Sen. Barry Goldwater—a more stalwart Republican would be hard to find—that illustrates the serious jeopardy Nixon was in.

Goldwater met with Nixon and told him, “You have maybe six votes in the Senate. I’m not one of them.” Whether or not the story is true—Goldwater later claimed he never discussed Nixon resigning—the President did just that the next day.

Watching Nixon waving in front of Marine One before they flew him from the White House was high drama.

The person who violated his oath of office, no matter how powerful that office might be, was forced to resign in the face of not political willpower but by the force of law supporting the continuity of the American government. We thought we were watching a once in a lifetime disaster averted in America.

Oh, how wrong we were.

Now, impeaching a President has become another exercise in partisanship. It is thrown around like leaving legislation in committee to die with little thought of the impact on the country, both domestic and foreign. Today we have Senators acting like petulant children by holding up critical military appointments for nothing more than cheap headlines, grandstanding, and a smokescreen to their lack of legislative effectiveness.

Our government has fumbled on the one yard line.

A sitting President’s actions may deserve impeachment, but today the vote almost always falls along party lines with few exceptions, making it a poor way to address the issue. And a dangerous one if party affiliation is the only deciding factor.

It would paralyze the country. When politicians speak about weaponizing the government against opponents they seem to forget they are the ones buying the weapons and the ammunition.

Now we face the specter of a former President indicted on ninety-one felony charges, and a host of misdemeanors, with trials looming amid an election cycle. Something even in our wildest imaginations we could never have conjured.

This is not a piece about the validity of the grand jury system used to investigate and issue indictments. Nor is it about the validity of the charges. Opinions have no place in the administration of justice. That is why we have trials.

This is about the trajectory of the county. Because if we cannot have faith in the justice system, we are teetering on the edge of anarchy.

In 1974, we witnessed history. A man who once won 49 of 50 states in the 1972 electoral college orchestrated and committed crimes while in office. He was forced to resign because there was a system in motion that would remove him because he committed crimes while in office. (Who remembers the Don’t Blame Me I’m From Massachusetts bumper stickers reminding everyone it was the one state McGovern won in that Presidential election?)

In 1974, we thought we would never witness such turmoil again. Yet here we are.

I find it amusing that those steadfast supporters of the indicted former president also are the most vocal about strong criminal justice. They bemoan the relaxation or elimination of pre-trial cash bail provisions ignoring the presumption of innocence.

Strange they remain silent while the former President, facing ninety-one felony counts, walks in an out of court with limited restrictions. The outrage about releasing any other person facing a similar catalog of felonies before trial, particularly one with the means to flee the jurisdiction, would be thunderous.

Or is it they suddenly understood what innocent until proven guilty means?

Here, there is not even a whimper out of fear of offending their idol. They seem unaffected by the fact we are funding Secret Service protection for a defendant and standing by while he uses the very charges he faces as fund raising tools. Disingenuous has reached new heights. The former president is benefitting from the eleemosynary generosity of Americans blinded to reality. (Long story about the word most of you are feverishly searching for the meaning, but it involves a former nun, recently deceased, who happens to be my aunt, and her disdain for lazy writing.)

Their other argument is one about fairness. The fact that the trial Judge in one of the cases is an Obama appointee automatically confers bias on her rulings. This country’s judicial system is supposed to be as free of bias as is humanly possible. Yet the former president’s supporters would argue that, absent a complete dismissal, only a Trump appointee could be expected to be fair.

I wonder if, had Hillary Clinton actually committed crimes, they would have been equally vocal if she faced a Trump appointed judge?

Of course, fair in their mind means the case gets tossed regardless of the evidence. Again, not how the system is supposed to work. We, the people, are entitled to hear the evidence and let a jury decide. That is the only way to ensure justice is carried out.

Under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the Nation is entitled to and deserves an expeditious resolution of the criminal prosecution of the former president for his alleged election interference and his prevention of the peaceful transition of power…

Amicus brief endorsing special counsel’s trial date for Trump in January 6 case – DocumentCloud

But if partisanship is important, than let me quote from a Amicus brief filed in the United States V. Donald J. Trump CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC) matter. For those of you having trouble keeping all the cases straight, this is the one where the President allegedly tried to unlawfully overturn the results of the election, incited a riot, and tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. I’ve included the list of those who signed the brief in the appendix below and the link to the document.

The brief supporting the trial date of January 2, 2024 for the case is signed by eleven former US Attorneys, current and former Judges, former Attorneys General (both state and federal), and every one of them is a Republican.

EVERY ONE IS A REPUBLICAN for those who may have skipped over, ignored, or otherwise missed the statement.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE The criminal prosecution in United States v. Donald J. Trump will be an historic trial of a former American president of surpassing public interest to the American People. This trial will present for decision by a jury of the former president’s peers the momentous question of whether a President of the United States of America committed grave crimes against the United States when he attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election by conspiring to defraud the United States of the lawful results of an American election, conspiring to obstruct the Joint Session of the Congress of the United States as it counted the electoral votes for the presidency of the United States, and conspiring to deprive millions of Americans of their constitutional right to have their votes counted. That attempt is further alleged to have precipitated the violent attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, a vicious and unparalleled attack and assault on the temple of American democracy and on American democracy itself.

Under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the Nation is entitled to and deserves an expeditious resolution of the criminal prosecution of the former president for his alleged election interference and his prevention of the peaceful transition of power for the first time in American history. That national imperative corresponds with the former president’s own constitutional entitlement to a speedy resolution of the grave charges that have now been leveled against him by the United States.

Amicus brief endorsing special counsel’s trial date for Trump in January 6 case – DocumentCloud

If we are to survive as a country, these case must be tried as fairly and expeditiously as possible. No defendant’s outside interests, with the exception of medical conditions, is ever a consideration in setting a trial date. That such matters may impede the former President’s pursuit of another term is irrelevant. No defendant is excused because they are too busy to attend trial.

And in the end, we need to accept the verdicts. If we rise to criticize those who would subvert the system we cannot then criticize that very same system for the verdicts rendered. It is the way American Justice works and the only way it can survive.

What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now! But not a resolution at the point of a gun, the threat of a mob, or swayed by the weight of public opinion.

The amici listed below join this brief as individuals and do not represent or advise any party in the matter; institutional affiliation is noted for informational purposes only and does not indicate endorsement by institutional employers of the positions advocated in this brief.
Donald B. Ayer served as Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1989 to 1990; Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States from 1986 to 1989; and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California from 1981 to 1986.
Steven G. Calabresi worked as a Special Assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese from 1985- 1987 and in the West Wing of the White House as the Chief Aide to the Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb, Assistant to President Reagan for Domestic Affairs. He is currently the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
John J. Farmer Jr. served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, New Jersey Attorney General, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and Dean of Rutgers Law School, and is currently Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics.
Stuart M. Gerson served as Acting Attorney General of the United States during the early Clinton Administration, as President George H.W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Justice Department, as an advisor to several Presidents, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (1972–1975).
Alberto R. Gonzales served as the 80th Attorney General of the United States from 2005–2007, as White House Counsel from 2001–2005, and as an Associate Justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 1999–2001.
J. Michael Luttig served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991–2006, as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Counselor to the Attorney General from 1990–1991, and as Assistant Counsel to the President, The White House from 1980–1981.
Richard W. Painter served as the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005– 2007. He is currently the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Jonathan C. Rose served as Special Assistant to President Nixon from 1971 to 1973, Associate Deputy Attorney General from 1973 to 1975, and Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Policy from 1981 to 1984.
Paul Rosenzweig served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security from 2005-2009, in the Office of Independent Counsel from 1998-1999, and in the United States Department of Justice from 1986-1991.
Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. served as a United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut and Chief of Staff to Connecticut Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
William F. Weld served as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts from 1981 to 1986; as the Assistant U.S. Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division from 1986 to 1988; and as Governor of Massachusetts from 1991 until 1997.

JEBWizard Publishing ( is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at or 401-533-3988.

Lies, Truth, and Consequences

Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.
William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1, Act 5, Sc. 4

Who knew?

All these years, I believed the First Amendment protected the right to publish or say anything you like without government interference. And while implicit in that is the “right” to lie, I always believed the First Amendment does not protect one from the consequences of false statements.

Some attorneys believe it does and have argued such in motions in court.

Where was this defense when I was a kid growing up and got caught doing something I shouldn’t?

It seems some would have us accept that the First Amendment is the ultimate shield to bearing any responsibility for their actions. If we accept that lying about anything is a constitutional right, it does not mean immunity from any criminal acts resulting from those lies.

Here’s a hypothetical. Let’s say someone in a position to know tells me my vote was changed. Based on that, I attack the institution named as responsible. Since I believed this person, even if they were lying about it for their own gain, I must be immune from any responsibility.

They had the right to lie, I had the right to accept the delusion and act on it.


To refresh everyone’s concepts of the two major forms of writing or stating false statements, we have these definitions in the English language.

Defamation: the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:

Libel: defamation by written, printed, or broadcast words or pictures.

Thus, the government, under most circumstances, cannot stop anyone from writing or saying anything before they publish or proclaim it—there is no prior restraint—with very few exceptions. Let’s say a government official who claims to have Top Secret material and intends to show it to individuals without clearance in locations incapable of providing adequate protections. Some would have us believe this is perfectly acceptable even if they were lying about it.

But there are some practical and ethical limitations here which any mature adult would recognize as reasonable given their positions and experience.

For example,

If I were to publish a blog piece saying I intended to launch a nuclear attack on some country, no one would be alarmed or concerned.

If a sitting President were to do the same thing—perfectly lawful in the eyes of some legal counsel and others—it might be more problematic.

If I were to claim the US Government is orchestrating a wide-ranging conspiracy to conceal a child sex trafficking ring from an obscure Pizza Parlor controlled by current and former government officials, most people would believe I had been over-served in a bar, experimented with some mind-altering substances, or just was plain Loonie-tunes. I mean, come on, who would believe it?

If the Attorney General of the United States were to make a similar claim, people would be up in arms demanding an investigation and criminal proceedings. That the Attorney General has a First Amendment right to lie hardly mitigates the damage such a statement, from a person in that position, causes.

And so it is with the current situation we find ourselves in America. The public relations campaign is attempting to find a believable, and lawfully defensible, rationale for claiming the election of 2020 was tainted, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yet the best they can come up with is a First Amendment right to say or write anything, including lies.

How that mitigates the criminality arising from such lies is beyond comprehension.

Next time some ten-year-old is standing near a broken window and says “Wasn’t me” keep in mind a former President and a significant number of Americans believe he has every right to do so. They conveniently leave out the part that, under the First Amendment, while you may lie about anything and everything, it does not mitigate the truth or the consequences.

Shakespeare said it best.

To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet' (1601) act 1, sc. 3, l. 58

JEBWizard Publishing ( is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at or 401-533-3988.

Contradictions American Style

Welcome to Jeopardy, the American Justice System version

I’ll take Startling Numbers for $100, Alex.


What are the percentage of Americans who support the death penalty AND believe the Trump indictments are politically motivated? ( and


I’ll take Startling Numbers for $200 Alex.


What is the percentage of Americans who think there is some risk of an innocent person being executed?


So we are a country where a majority of people believe the administration of justice is corrupt and rife with politics, yet will risk killing a few innocent people to keep the death penalty on the books.

And they believe this despite the previous administration being unable to “persuade” his Attorney General to indict any political foes, or their children. And the myriad of convictions in death penalty cases reversed after the appellate process.

A definition of contradiction could not have a better illustration.

I encourage you to read the poll questions. There are some elements in the details that are even more startling. But a majority believe Trump committed crimes. And most believe they should prosecute him. But they are so jaundiced by anecdotal examples of political interference in the criminal justice system, they will accept this false reality of overarching political control by the White House.

They further demonstrate a contradiction of beliefs that is truly daunting, a willingness to risk the execution of a person who is innocent of the crime in order to preserve the death penalty.

Even at it’s worse, when an indisputably corrupt President held office, i.e. Richard Nixon, those political appointees in the Justice Department did the right thing. And, in a subsequent administration, when politicians sought indictments for purely political reasons, a similarly appointed Attorney General, Bill Barr and his staff resisted.

They did not “Lock her up.” They investigated, found no evidence of any crimes, and dropped the case.

The Justice department is fallible. It is not immune from outside influence, but to believe it caters to the whims of the person occupying the White House is nonsense. Even if some Presidents would wish it so.

Local justice systems may be a bit more susceptible, but even they have built-in safeguards. But errors of judgments happen. Some trial justices, jurors, and prosecutors let their innate prejudices against some defendants sway their judgments.

And thus the risk of an innocent person being executed. That is not America.

I’ll take American Jurisprudence for $1000, Alex.

Everyone was once Equal Under the Law.

What is, when did America lose its way?

Bud Light Lost Money, BFD

First, let me say this. If there ever was a beverage masquerading as a beer with a worse taste, I’ve never heard of it. Bud Light being called a beer is like one of those old TV dinners with the aluminum tasting peas being served at Michelin Three Star restaurants as an entrée

It is blasphemy.

What Bud Light does is fill the need for those who wish to conserve their money—pay day and title loans in many cases—and maximize the quantity of beer they can acquire.

Anyone, given the choice of a comparably priced real beer would be insane to pick Bud Light. As we used to call some ales we acquired as miscreant underage drinkers with few options, it tastes like Tiger piss.

And that is an insult to tigers.

But now the battle lines are drawn between those who are taking delight in Bud Light’s fall from grace and those who see this as a backlash against Bud Light’s brief flirtation with supporting a transgender human being.

But I see this a bit differently. First, Bud Light does not come to mind as the beverage of choice at a LGBTQ party. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.

Bud Light is the beverage of choice at say, NASCAR, or a game dinner. It goes well with the exhaust fumes and the small talk about gutting animals and different caliber bullet effectiveness and range.
This is not to be critical of such events, just the reality of the world.

Could it be the dramatic downturn in sales—in all probability not due to any reduced demand at LGTBQ clubs or transgender recovery parties—be from the NASCAR/Hunting/testosterone club types concerned about being associated with a “gay” drink?

What self-respecting race fan has an umbrella in their drink? Beer is the only choice and not a beer with someone confused about gender on the can.

This is not about the beer; this is about resistance to what some people cannot or will not understand.
Bud Light lost money, BFD. I think they did the world of beer a favor. Leave the light beer to companies like Coors who understand the market.

Why else would they call it “The Silver Bullet?”