Blog Archives

Letter to Senator Kelly

6/30/2025

This is the text of a letter I forwarded to Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.

Dear Senator:

I would like to ask for an answer to a question that has been simmering in my mind for some time.  But before I pose that question, and for full disclosure, let me say, I am a retired secondary educator who just happened to teach US History and Government for over 30 years.  I have a small understanding of our country’s history and ongoings in Washington.  I am a lifelong registered Republican who supported Nikki Haley.  I did not vote for President Trump for various reasons. AND, I like your politics, to the point of seriously considering jumping ship and registering as a Democrat because the MAGA Republicans do not represent my interests.

With the President now being able to sign an Executive Order to eliminate birthright citizenship because HIS interpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn’t align with what has been accepted for over 150 years…I have my own interpretation of a portion in the Third Clause of the same amendment.

I am quite confident you are aware of the Third Clause of the 14th Amendment.  To emphasize my concern, I have taken the liberty to include the text of the Third Clause of said Amendment, with the portion of the clause that has my attention in bold type.

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

As I understand the evidence and proceedings of the “January 6th” Committee, I am convinced there was enough evidence to charge the President with Seditious Conspiracy.  I am acutely aware this charge is difficult to prove.  Some would have preferred to charge the President with “Insurrection”, but that would be even more difficult of a verdict to ascertain.

From the New Oxford dictionary…

insurrection | ˌinsəˈrekSHən | noun; a violent uprising against an authority or government:

Surprisingly, the thesaurus for the New Oxford dictionary lists the following words related to “insurrection”.

rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, insurgency, rising, rioting, riot, sedition; civil disobedience, civil disorder, unrest, anarchy, fighting in the streets; coup; French coup d'état

And the definition of sedition, or, sedition conspiracy as offered by the New Oxford dictionary would be:

seditious | səˈdiSHəs | adjective; inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state

That being said, it is highly probable Seditious Conspiracy would be between two or more planning to interrupt the process of government, but failing to act.  In essence, the difference between the two is, seditious conspiracy is “the talk” while insurrection is “the walk or action” if you will.

While the President’s speech on the Ellipse on January 6th , 2021 certainly stoked the fire of the attack on the Capitol, it was nothing more than inciting the people to commit to the attack.  In the President’s words,

“…We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore…”

In my view, that statement was a call to arms to his supporters, but, as we know, the President was never found guilty of any wrong doing.  However, many of his supporters, about 1600, were.  Some of those found guilty were members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.  They were convicted of seditious conspiracy and not insurrection…which makes me wonder about the prosecution of these people.

On day one of his second term in office, President Trump commuted the sentences of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.  It is clear to me many “rioters” were attacking the Capitol building in an attempt to interfere with the government action of canvassing the Electoral College votes, a duty of the Vice President in his role as President of the Senate.

Many members of the both chambers were in danger, maybe yourself included, at the hands of the rioters (insurrectionists).  The January 6th Committee uncovered evidence indicating Vice President Pence’ life was threatened as well as Nancy Pelosi’s life.  All of this action during this attack on the Capitol and the members of both chambers of Congress reeks of more than seditious conspiracy…but, I understand how difficult it would be to prove it…but there were convictions regarding that illegal activity.

And here Senator, is my concern.  If the President granted commuted sentences to those who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, has he not given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof?  And, if this assumption is accurate, is this not grounds for impeachment?

I realize SCOTUS has ruled any action taken by the President in an official capacity of the office is legal (and I disagree with that opinion) but, in my view, this is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, Clause Three.  The President’s action may not be a high crime or misdemeanor, but it certainly aided enemies of the state, whom I might add the President called patriots.

These so-called patriots attempted to interfere with governmental procedure outlined in the Constitution of the United States.  These so-called patriots destroyed governmental property and threatened the lives of elected federal officials.  And yet, the President commuted their sentences.

As for me, I know spending years behind prison bars would not be my cup of tea.  It would present physical and mental hardship to me beyond description.  I am of the opinion, for most all people, the same may apply.  With that being said, in my thoughts, the President has given aid or comfort to those who were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy and is thereby not qualified to hold the office of the President of the United States.

Why hasn’t this been brought before Congress?  I know the argument the GOP would bring up…”the Dems just want to get rid of Trump so they can open the border again”, or, “the Dems have DJT syndrome”.  But if someone in a place of authority doesn’t bring up what I believe are substantial allegations, then the Constitution of the United States has been invalidated.  Our country will no longer stand for what many of us believe…the same things the founding fathers believed.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

Very Truly Yours,

Jamie Simms

0 Comments

SCOTUS SCREW-UP

6/27/2025

0 Comments

It is this man’s opinion there may be more in play with the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding lower federal courts ruling on Presidential Executive Orders.  If the 14th Amendment can be changed by Executive Order, our American society as we know it will be broken beyond repair.  Civil Rights will no longer be a thing guaranteed…the President even said as much.  Laws could be made for certain classes of people, which, as it stands, under the 14th Amendment cannot happen…we are all first-class citizens under the law.  Please note “all” is equivalent to 100 per cent of the citizens of this great nation.

Here are two areas of my concern.

Under attack by the present-day administration is the 14th Amendment.  In particular, the current administration wishes to do away with “birthright citizenship”.  The general consensus regarding birthright citizenship has been if a person is born on American soil, then that person is a citizen of the United States.  The argument has always been about “the soil” and not “the blood”.  This concept known as jus soli (the soil) means that anyone born in a particular country is a citizen of that country…otherwise known as birthright citizenship.  The concept of jus sanguinis (the blood) determines a person’s citizenship based on the blood or citizenship of parents.

Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship conflicts with a Supreme Court case from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause made citizens of all children born on U.S. soil with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in the case currently before the court.

However, there are some exceptions.  The 14th Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to is jurisdiction are citizens.  But this clause excludes certain groups of people from claiming US citizenship regardless of being born in the U.S.  Those groups of people excluded by the “subject to jurisdiction clause are children of foreign diplomats that are stationed in the United States and some members of certain indigenous tribes whose relationship with the U.S. is limited.

In my opinion, what SCOTUS has done has given the Executive Branch (the President) the opportunity to change the Constitution without going through the amendment process.  By hearing the case brought before the Court by the Executive Branch and ruling that lower federal courts cannot rule against an executive order, the President’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship could become law.  This is akin to negating the 14th Amendment and its clause “ guaranteeing them (citizens) equal protection under state laws and forbidding states from infringing on the privileges or immunities of citizens” otherwise known as first class citizenship.

And if this were to happen, what other civil rights could be taken from the population?  Most of the American population has citizenship by the term birthright citizenship.  The common argument would be the Executive Order only applies to undocumented citizens having children in the U.S., but does it?

The first civil right I can think of that would be taken would be the right to vote.  After all, during his campaign, the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Christians that if they vote for him this November (2024), "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."  With the SCOTUS decision…could this happen?

And if the citizenship cannot vote…who then becomes the President?  Or will there be a change?

And, there is another question regarding the 14th Amendment that is far more troubling to me.  It deals with the Third Clause of the amendment.  Specifically, the Third Clause of the 14th Amendment bars those who previously took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they then engage in insurrection or rebellion against the US, or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.

I am confident no charges of insurrection will ever be brought against the President until, if it happens, when he leaves office.  Sitting Presidents are not normally prosecuted unless it is a high crime or misdemeanor against the government.  Even though the “January 6th Committee” conducted an exhaustive investigation into the January 6th insurrection, and evidence certainly provided the President had a hand in that event, no charges were brought against him.

BUT, the portion of the Third Clause that grabs my attention is “… or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.”  Did the President give aid or comfort to approximately 1500 insurrectionists he pardoned?  Many if not all had been arrested and convicted for their part in the attack on the Capitol, January 6th, 2021.  I can’t imagine spending a portion of my life behind bars…so any pardon or clemency would certainly give me relief which would provide me a degree of comfort.  I am somewhat sure, those who were being held for their conviction pertaining to the January 6th insurrection feel the same.

Yet, surprisingly, I haven’t heard a single elected official bring this to the table for discussion.  Why is that?

I suppose, for those of us who are old enough, the saying “Only the Shadow Knows” may apply.

0 Comments

Let's find fundamental truth

6/21/2025

0 Comments

There have been a few things that have “stuck” with me during my lifetime.  I have always been fascinated with the US Civil War; the generals, the battlefields, the reasons for and the aftermath.  I have an interest in the Ancient Greeks, one in particular, Socrates.  I surmise that is because I became a teacher, and Socrates developed the “Socratic Method” as a form of education to have students develop a sense of finding the truth of a matter.  And, because Athens is called the birthplace of democracy…my attachment to Athens is self-evident.

To be sure, there have been quotes that have “stuck” with me.  My father always told me to “Do it right the first time and you won’t get called back to fix your mistake”.  My high school football coach preached “Don’t take a play off, because lightning may strike.”  There have been others for sure, but, recently, another quote came to me.  “You cannot question a man’s judgment, but you can question his motivation”.

It is combination of all of these thoughts I often ask why?  Why is it so?  And that leads me to the subject of this article.

Friday, June 20, President Trump called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election which he lost to Joe Biden.  This has been reported by several news agencies, Forbes, the Hill, NBC News, USA Today, Huffington Post to name a few.  All have reported the same.

From Forbes…

President Donald Trump called Friday for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate former President Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 election, as Trump has continued to push baseless evidence of fraud in the election despite still facing criminal charges for his post-election efforts.
Trump railed against the 2020 election results on Truth Social Friday morning, claiming the election was a “total FRAUD.”

From The Hill…

“Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD! The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING,” Trump posted. “A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!”

Trump lost the 2020 election to former President Biden. There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, despite years of claims otherwise from Trump and some of his allies.

From NBC…

President Donald Trump on Friday posted a call on social media for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden more than four years ago.

"A Special Prosecutor must be appointed," Trump wrote. "This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!"

From USA Today…

"Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD! The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed," Trump wrote on social media June 20
.
From the Huffington Post…

President Donald Trump on Friday called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the 2020 presidential election that he lost, repeating his unsubstantiated, broken-record claims that the contest was stolen from him.

Despite over 60 previous lawsuits regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election filed by the President’s lawyers, not one survived the litmus test of the court system.  All were tossed because of a lack of evidence.  Even Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr stated he saw no reason to believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.  To be sure, there are still court cases in the process of being adjudicated regarding false electors of Trump.

So, when I ask why about Trump’s request for a special prosecutor, understand I want to get to the fundamental truth of the situation.  Socrates would understand that.  In fact, Socrates was sentenced to death for inspiring his students to question the government.  But, it appears, in the world of Trump, one cannot question.

And if one does not agree with Trump, the results are just as bad.  It was Tulsi Gabbard who just found out if the information presented at a Senate hearing does not “jive” with Trump, expect a public rebuttal stating, “She’s wrong”.

This brings me to the recent quote I heard, “You cannot question a man’s judgment, but you can question his motivation”.  I guess Socrates would agree with this, after all, the Socratic Method requires questioning to get to the fundamental truth…something Socrates call “virtue”
.
And from whom did the quote come?  During his time as President of the United States, Joe Biden.

0 Comments

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

6/20/2025

0 Comments

I apologize for not being more prudent with my articles.  However, in my defense, I have had a difficult time trying to determine what to write about given the everchanging events from D.C. and the rest of the world.  But I will give this opportunity to our leader of our nation’s spies’.

Imagine if you will, you have been hired by a large 500 Fortune corporation and put in charge of a most important division of said corporation.  Imagine you have reported to the board of directors your conclusions after consulting with those in your division regarding highly sensitive, industrial intelligence.  Then imagine, the CEO of said corporation makes a public statement indicating the CEO doesn’t care what your report may state because the CEO believes you are wrong.

What do you do?  Do you quit because the CEO has doubted your work?  Do you become angry and give the CEO the middle finger salute as you exit the building?  Do you keep your calm and put your head down and recheck your information given in your report?  What do you do?

Now here is the real scenario…

On March 25, 2025, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified at a Senate hearing concerning global threats. This hearing was part of the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Part of her testimony was…

“…Iran continues to seeks expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data.

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program…”

Today, June 20th, President Trump refuted his appointed Director of National Intelligence testimony.  Reuters reported President Trump said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

Trump contested intelligence assessments relayed earlier this year by his spy chief that Tehran was not working on a nuclear weapon when he spoke with reporters at an airport in Morristown, New Jersey.  Trump simply said, “She’s wrong”.

So, if you were Director Gabbard…what do you do?

The President has publicly refuted your work, your work by your department.  He has sent the message, our intelligence community doesn’t know what it is doing.  And it appears Trump doesn’t trust Gabbard or her department and has given all involved a vote of no confidence.

I say this because, several questions come to me regarding this public denouncing of Gabbard.

First, with whom has Trump been discussing national intelligence, if he hasn’t spoken with Gabbard and her division?

Second, is there a “shadow” or black ops intelligence gathering division of government that goes unmentioned, and if that is the case, why is Gabbard and her intelligence division even in operation, if the President is relying on information from another source other than Gabbard?

Third, is this Trump just being Trump and having to be the alpha dog in the room?  The person with all of the knowledge regarding all aspects of the government?

Fourth, did Gabbard get it wrong or did she openly lie to the Senate committee to which she was testifying before, and if so…why?

So, if you were Tulsi Gabbard, what do you do?  Gabbard’s office has issued a statement she and her department are “aligned” with the White House.  Gabbard still has her job…for now.

Afterall, we do know the President has often said, “You’re fired” while filming his TV show, The Apprentice.  Unfortunately, this isn’t reality TV.

0 Comments

You Can't Have it Both Ways

6/9/2025

0 Comments

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of this entry, there are some things that I must clarify so you, the reader, will become aware of what I am trying to say.  As I have watched the events unfold in Los Angeles over this past weekend (June 7 and 8) I have tried to make sense of what is happening.  I understand the President’s desire to rid the nation of undocumented citizens, but that doesn’t mean I agree with his methods.  I understand why the protests have taken place, but, again, that doesn’t mean I agree with the methods of the protestors.

I also know one of the requirements of any country is to have borders.  Those borders can be geophysical boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans, or arbitrarily drawn lines in the sand.  Simply said, without borders, there is no country.  I also know there are few countries in the world that have immigrants in quantity as part of the national population like the United States.

I know that immigration reform is the charge of the Congress.  It is stated so in the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec 8). The most recent comprehensive immigration bill passed by Congress was the Immigration and Reform and Control Act of 1986 (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty). This bill, signed into law in November 1986, granted legalization to millions of unauthorized immigrants and also imposed sanctions on employers who hired unauthorized workers. While there have been numerous other bills and efforts to address immigration reform since then, none have achieved comprehensive legislation in the same way as the 1986 act.  (Please note, this act granted legalization to millions of unauthorized immigrants.) There have been other acts like the Laken Riley Act(S. 5) requires DHS to detain undocumented individuals arrested for specific crimes. The American Dream and Promise Act (H.R. 16) and other bills, including the DIGNIDAD Act, offer paths to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, particularly Dreamers and those with temporary protected status.

So, with this in mind, I have arrived at the conclusion “You Can’t Have it Both Ways!”

How is it that ICE can arrest and detain immigrants outside of immigration courts as those seeking to gain entrance to the United States in a legal manner?  Isn’t that what this federal administration wants…for immigrants to legally enter the United States?  How is that?

How is it the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and declare the protests in Los Angeles an “insurrection”, but having previously turned his back on the insurrection on January 6, 2021 at the nation's capitol?  If the President can send the National Guard to Los Angeles, then why did the President ask then Speaker of the House Pelosi, if she wanted the National Guard brought in to the Capitol?  How is that?

In the event one may not know the definition of “insurrection”, here is a dictionary description of “insurrection”:  insurrection | ˌinsəˈrekSHən | noun a violent uprising against an authority or government

In my view…there isn’t any difference between what is happening in Los Angeles and what happened in Washington DC, except for the behavior of the President.

And for those in Los Angeles protesting, I ask these questions:  Why did you come to this country?  (I can only speculate it was for a better life, a chance to improve your station in life, to get away from the corruption of your country of origin.)  Why, then, would you wave a flag of another nation (Mexican flag) if you want to stay in this country?  All that does is infuriate the members of the population who have had family members sacrifice their life for this country and freedom.  It’s okay to be Mexican-American, but one cannot be loyal to another country if you choose to immigrate to this country.  How is that?

President Theodore Roosevelt addressed this in a speech given during his administration in the early 1900s.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...”

As I have said, “You Can’t Have it Both Ways”

0 Comments

One Man's Opinion

Letter to Senator Kelly

SCOTUS SCREW-UP

Let's find fundamental truth

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

You Can't Have it Both Ways

Archives