MOST ALL OF TODAY’S PROBLEMS seem to have hungry roots in the dirt that is Donald Trump. It will behoove our coming generation not to make the same mistakes with his oldest son (now 44) that it has with ex-President Donald.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out that the news columns of our historic Free Press are showing considerable restraint in dealing with testimony being aired by the House of Representatives’ special committee on events related to U.S. capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021. Can you imagine the condition of our society if we still had Trump as President and our Press was just one grand Twitter designed for the senseless sloganeering of semi-literate Donald . . . serving him in keeping the public blind to reality. As it turned out, the Free Press is a major part of our Democratic Republic, which has withstood the latest assault by Donald.

For up-close auditing of the Special Committee’s release of testimony, see the several-hour hearings regularly over television—and perhaps check around on the Internet for such things as Trump’s alleged tampering with one of the committee’s witnesses. The committee testimony will be up to the Justice Department for possible prosecution somewhere along the line, and it will all become more meaningful.

One quote that immediately caught my eye in The Seattle Times the morning after on July 13 (by Sarah Wire of the Los Angeles Times) was by a remorseful Jason Van Tatenhove, former spokesman for the Oath Keepers, one of the seditious extremist groups (reputedly armed) in the area Jan. 6. He said: “It was going to be an armed revolution . . . People died that day. . . There was a gallows that was set up. This could have been the spark that started a new civil war.”

He said he fears for the future if there is no reckoning for what happened Jan. 6, 2021. “If a president tries to instill and encourage, whip up civic war among his followers, using lies, deceit and snake oil, regardless of the human impact, what else is he going to do if he gets elected again?”

Donald will be working on the usual stalling, misdirection, etc, between now and the ultra-important mid-term election this coming Nov. 8 (and the Presidential Election of 2024).

Which reminds me that — other written accounts to the contrary — Trump always will be “ex-President” rather than “former President” to me. There’s a difference. Former denotes a more desired connection to the event or title. A former President or Soldier typically is reserved for honorable mention versus the negative connotation associated as an "ex." Example: I was fired; I am an ex-employee. I retired and am now a former employee. The latter implies a more appropriate choice versus an unintended consequence. We voted against ex-President Donald.

Following is a brief comment by Rachel Olding of the Daily Beast posted a mere hour after the Special Committee’s presentation July 12: “In Tuesday’s hearing, the House Committee investigating the Capitol riot aired previously unseen testimony describing just how wild Trump’s infamous late-night Oval Office meeting on Dec. 18 was. The Daily Beast previously reported that Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn floated jaw-dropping ideas for overturning Trump’s 2020 loss, including appointing Powell a special counsel to probe voter fraud and seizing voting machines. Taped testimony aired Tuesday documented how the six-hour meeting devolved into personal insults and screaming.

“White House lawyers Eric Herschmann and Pat Cipollone ‘showed nothing but contempt and disdain of the president,’ Powell testified. Cipollone countered that Powell, Flynn, and Rudy Giuliani were verbally ‘attacking’ him while avoiding ‘one simple question . . . where is the evidence?’ Giuliani, in turn, said he called the two lawyers ‘pussies’ who weren’t up to the task of keeping the president in power. ‘The screaming was completely, completely out there,’ staff secretary Derek Lyons testified. In a text to a colleague, Cassidy Hutchinson, then an aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, called the meeting ‘UNHINGED.’”

•

With over-population gradually destroying our planet, why are we still cheering the mindless parents who are sending forth 8 or 10 children into our society? I look back at the beginning of the 20th century and find 18 children in the two sides of my family. However, my father and mother have done far better — and are succeeded by a mere three (3) great, great-grandchildren. But the world in general is chugging right along, with Mother Nature losing the overall battle. (Immigration is merely a matter of placement.)