SOCIAL COMMENTARY

Beginning of the Coronavirus History

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Wed, 09 Dec 2020 02:48:00 +0000

In the Bible, it starts out "In the Beginning" and as it pertains to the coronavirus, which has caused the death of over 280,000 Americans along with infecting 12M more; there was a time before this, time. The following is a chronology of events since the "Age of Corona."

March 2020:

(3/4) 129 deaths; 10 deaths in WA state.

(3/6) president tRump signed 8.6B aid bill.

(3/13) tRump called national emergency; signed bill freeing up 50B in federal aid.

(3/20) CA state issues shutdown affecting 40M people. FL beaches closed.

15, 268 cases; 201 deaths.

(3/23) Senate passed 1.8T stimulus relief package.

(3/28) FDA approved a 15-minute coronavirus test. This technology is the same used for rapid flu tests (CNN).

(3/30) 27 states issue stay-at-home orders affecting 225M people; tRump extends order to April 30.

(3/31) 700 deaths in one day.

April 2020:

(4/12) 20,000 deaths; more than in Italy.

(4/14) FDA approved saliva test for emergency COVID-19 testing, the new quick test developed by Rutgers University.

May 2020:

(5/02) FDA approved Ebola drug "remdesivir" to combat coronavirus (CNN).

(5/09) WH staff tested positive for COVID -19; VP Pence's aide and WH valet.

(5/16) tRump fired State dept. IG Steve Linnick because he had been investigating Mike Pompeo for abuse of power.

(5/23) Coronavirus deaths near 100,000 (CNN).

(5/24) tRump orders travel ban against Brazil.

(5/30) New study finds 1 out of 10 coronavirus patients with diabetes die within first week.

June 2020:

(6/03) Defense Secretary Mike Esper stated he does not support invoking the "Insurrection Act" to deploy federal troops to quell violent protests.

(6/10) 12 states seeing increase in coronavirus cases.

(6/25) Two secret service agents tested positive following tRump rally in Tulsa, OK. Dozens of staff told to self-isolate.

(6/29) U.S. citizens cannot travel to Canada for leisure; coronavirus cases in Texas reaches 5,000/day and Gov. Abbot urges residents to wear a mask.

2,500,000 cases in U.S.

July 2020:

(7/03) Two Texas counties sent out alerts urging residents to stay-in-place.

tRump had a rally at Mt. Rushmore and no one wore a mask and practiced social distancing.

Don Jr. girlfriend Kimberly Gilfoyle and 1 of tRump's staff tested positive for COVID-19.

(7/4) 21 states requiring residents to wear masks outside (CNN).

(7/6) FDA Chief Dr. Stephen Hahn announced he will not back tRump's prediction about a vaccine that will be ready by this year.

(7/13) At least 27 states have begun to shut down again, or to require face covering outside.

(7/18) tRump refuses to make mask wearing "mandatory" despite Dr. Anthony Fauci wanting it (CNN).

August 2020:

(8/20) 5.5M cases; 174,000 deaths.

September 2020:

(9/01) 6M cases; 184,000 deaths.

"Lenzilumab" antibody therapy reduced the risk of death by 80% in COVID-19 patients by CA biopharmaceutical company 'Humanigen.'

October 2020:

(10/02) tRump and Melania test positive for COVID-19.

(10/03) 10 people in tRump inner circle test positive for COVID-19.

(10/19) 70,000 new cases in one day; MI and VT saw improvement.

(10/23) 83, 010 cases reported in a day and in the past week there have been 441, 541 cases.

(10/25) 6 aides to Mike Pence tested positive for COVID-19.

(10/30) 94,000 cases in just 24 hours.

November 2020:

(11/01) 9M cases; 230,000 deaths.

(11/11) TX hits 1M cases.

(11/12) 160,000 cases in one day; 10.5M cases; 241,000 deaths.

(11/13) CA hits 1M cases.

(11/15) According to Johns Hoskins University the U.S. reached 11M cases.

(11/16) Moderna announced a vaccine that is 95% effective.

trump's legal team withdraws legal fraud lawsuits from PA, GA, WI, MI.

(11/18) tRump wants "recount" in WI.

(11/20) 12M cases; 250,000 deaths.

(11/23) U.S. vaccine Program announced vaccines may be ready by December 11.

(11/27) Joe Biden received 132 extra votes in Milwaukee, WI after tRump requested a "recount."

Robert Randle

December 7, 2020

Houston, TX 77063

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is the Republican political Party really racist?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 03:36:00 +0000

It's time to set the record straight about Democrats and Republicans when it comes to civil/human rights of Black people, descended from slaves brought to American shores from the continent of Africa. The Democrat Party, comprised of Southern states, seceded from the Union, and fought to preserve chattel slavery. The Republican Party fought to end this inhumane practice. In fact, they started out in 1854 WI as the anti-slavery Whig Party, and fought to prevent slavery in the Northern Territories.

After the Union Army won the Civil War, Republicans amended the Constitution to grant newly freed slaves, freedom (13th Amendment); citizenship (14th Amendment); and the right to vote (15th Amendment). In response, Democrats passed Jim Crow laws in their local jurisdictions of southern states to deny Blacks their constitutional rights. The Republican-controlled Congress passed Civil Rights laws during the 1860's to guarantee Blacks the rights they were entitled to.

This legislation occurred during the period of "Reconstruction" under former Union General Ulysses S Grant (R) in 1868, backed by the "Radical" Republicans in Congress. Grant received votes from 450,000 freedmen. The "Moderate" Republican voices in Congress backed Democrat challenger, Horace Greeley. After the 1872 presidential election president Grant wanted more protection of Black rights. The Republican Party was more split along idealogical lines at this time; some who supported Black civil rights, and others who wanted more local self-governance in the South. "Liberal" Republicans backed Horace Greeley.

The presidential election of 1876 between Rutherford B Hayes (R) and Samuel J Tilden (D) was a turning point in American political history. During Reconstruction, federal troops remained in the South, however, in 1874, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, and Democrat support of the Republican president Hayes was conditioned on assurances that federal troops would not interfere in southern politics. At this time, Republicans controlled the states of SC, LA, and FL. In what was known as "the compromise of 1877" federal troops were withdrawn from All southern states; despite "Republican" protests over the treatment of Black voters.

When Grover Cleveland (D) became president in 1892, the Democrat Party took over both Houses of Congress, and in 1894 passed the Civil Rights Repeal Act; which overturned the civil rights laws of the 1860's. Although there were 3 Republican presidents following this time, from 1896-1912 (William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. Woodrow Wilson (D), who was a racist and segregationist became president in 1912, despite having large support from Black voters who thought he was a 'different' kind of politician.

Woodrow Wilson probably would not have become president if Theodore Roosevelt, who wanted to be re-elected, split the Republican Party; forming his own Bull Moose "(Progressive") political Party. Afterwards, there were another 3 Republican presidents from 1920-1928 (Warren G Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover). After 1928, the political landscape began to change as Democrats carried the 12 largest cities (in the North).

The "Great Depression" started under Hoover, and not surprisingly, Franklin D Roosevelt (D) became president in 1932. Democrats also controlled Congress. The 1936 presidential election was a pivotal period for African-Americans, who had traditionally voted Republican, switched to FDR in "record numbers" with 71% support.

NOTE: FDR is the only president in United States political history to be elected to 4 terms (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). He died in office in 1945.

Harry S Truman (D) became president in 1948 against Thomas E Dewey (R), who, despite having a solid record on civil rights, tried to appeal more to White southern Conservatives. Truman received 77% of the Black vote and was the first president to desegregrate the military. The Democrat Party adopted a strong Civil Rights platform, however, southern delegates walked out, forming the States Rights Party ("Dixiecrats") of which such political figures were: George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd.

At this time, 40% of Blacks moved out of the South and lived in the North (mostly, NY, IL, PA, OH, and MI), which was about 1.6M people. Truman said that Northern Negroes were the road to the presidency. Former WWII General and Head of Columbia University, Dwight D Eisenhower (R) becane president in 1952 over Adlai E Stevenson (D). After his re-election in 1956, he said that "segregation" is a threat to national security and sent the 101st Airbourne to protect Black children going to segregated White schools in Arkansas. Eisenhower received 40% of the Black vote.

Let's fast forward a little further to the 1960's: It was Senator Everett Dirksen (R) who championed the Civil Rights legislation of 1957, 1964, 1965, and 1968; although reluctantly, at first, and was instrumental in getting it passed through Congress. Ironically, both John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson, as members of the Senate, "opposed" the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Senator Barry Goldwater (R) supported the Bill and opposed it in 1964 on Constitutional grounds because he felt it involved too much goverment overreach into local state jurisdictions; he later regretted that position until his dying day. Also, it was a little known fact that Goldwater was a lifelong member of the NAACP.

John F Kennedy (D) was elected president in 1960, beating out Richard M Nixon (R), who basically held the "same" position on Civil Rights as JFK. Nixon, unlike JFK and LBJ, voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and received 32% of the Black vote. After JFK's assassination, Lyndon B Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964, and defeated him; receiving 94% of the Black vote. At this time "most" Blacks were prevented from voting in the south by "Jim Crow" Defacto laws by Democrat legislators or Dejure practices.

Goldwater wanted to eliminate Social Security, increase bombing in North Vietnam, and said that there is hardly a "difference" between Republican Conservatives and Southern Democrats. LBJ became the "first" president from a southern state since Andrew Jackson.

NOTE: After Barry Goldwater, Blacks fled the Republican Party in droves to the Democrats for good!!

In 1968, Richard M Nixon (R) ran for president against George McGovern (D), and won. At this time southern Democrats were responding favorably to Republican Party ideas about big business, less government regulation, personal responsibility, and government non-intervention in the matter of integration and school busing; as opposed to civil rights for Blacks. Despite Nixon's "Law and Order" mandate, he started the first 'Affirmative Action' groundwork with the 1969 "Philadelphia Plan" crafted by Black Republican Arthur Fletcher; which was intended to undo federal job discrimination policies by "Progressive" Democrat president Woodrow Wilson.

The election of Jimmy Carter (D) as president over Gerald Ford (R) coincided with Democrat contol of Congress from 1968-1976. Carter received 83% of the Black vote as the Democrat Party tried to deepen ties with African-Americans. Ronald Reagan (R) served 2 terms as presudent (1980, 1984); and George H.W. Bush served 1 term before Bill Clinton (D) beat him in the 1992 presidential election. In 1996, Clinton ran against Bob Dole (R) of Kansas, and won re-election; although he only carried 4 southern states.

In the following presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, the Democrat Party has NOT carried a single southern state-why?? Democrats have controlled the South for over 100 years, and Democrat policies in Black communities for well over the past 60 years have left behind impoverished, crime-infested, drug dealing, economically-devitalized urban jungles (da' hood), food insecure islands, high unemployment, failing schools in a social wasteland and crumbling infrastructure in cities like Detroit, South Chicago, and Baltimore. More cities could be added to the list; along with communities of color in states like, again, NY, IL, PA, OH, MI, etc. So, who are the Real 'racists'? I think the evidence is clear, however, it is up to you to decide for yourself.

Robert Randle

Houston, TX

November 20, 2020

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Is defunding the police the answer to racial injustice?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:24:00 +0000

The death of George Floyd at the hands, or in this case, a knee on the back of the neck, by Minneapolis police officer David Chauvin has renewed the anguished cries to abolish police departments across America. This videotaped abuse of police authority in the Murder of a Black man who had no weapon and wasn't resisting officer commands was seen around the world, leading to demonstrations and violent protests. The discussions centering around racial disparity in the criminal justice system and reforming local police departments is not 'new' but what is different this time is all the talk about "defunding" or to some, abolishing police departments altogether. The death of yet another Black man by a White, male police officer has once again ignited a powder keg of racial tension between the P-O-L-I-C-E and communities of color; which is greatly strained and near the breaking point anyway.

Advocates of taking funding generally allocated to police departments and redistributing it in at-risk communities for drug treatment, mental health and other services has merit; but how practical is it in reality? Let's just say this does happen and police departments will be understaffed and overworked and underpaid officers are less likely to perform their job in a professional manner as the public expects. In fact, many offcers already work a second job to provide for their families just like those they are sworn to protect and serve. The few good and ethical officers will quit the force to get a better paying job elsewhere and what's left will be the kind of officers who have the mentality like those who killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Jamar Clark, Philandro Castile, Stephon Clark, LaQuan McDonald, Eric Garner, Atatiana Jefferson; and others.

The better answer is to increase funding to police departments so that officers can receive the Best training in de-escalation techniques, psychological (implicit bias) testing, non-lethal arrest procedures, mental health specialists, and more focus on community outreach/liaison officers. The other part of this is what, and it pains me to admit this, what Conservatives say, namely; We as Black people have to the best of our ability, live morally responsibly and within the law. Even if this happens it still doesn't guarantee that there will not be contact with Law Enforcement. If this happens, no matter how inconvenient and uncomfortable the encounter may turn out, we have to keep our cool; follow officer's commands exactly because they are already on edge, anxious, and possibly trigger-happy. Don't give them a reason to get into a struggle with you or verbally assault them, which is justification for a 'legal' arrest.

Defunding the police is ONLY half the problem; the rest, and the other half, is up to us.

Robert Randle

10050 Westpark Dr Apt 1918

Houston, TX 77042

June 11, 2020

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Can a convicted Felon lose the Right to vote?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:40:00 +0000

Crystal Mason was sentenced to 5 years in prison for illegally voting in the 2016 presidential election. Her attorneys will take the case before the Texas Court of Appeals and argue that she was wrongfully convicted and ask for a new trial. If the judges reject her request she will go to the State's highest Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Dallas Morning News had an article "Can felons vote in Texas? Sometimes" by reporter Jennifer Emily, which revealed the oftentimes arbitrary and inconsistent conditions or requirements which have to met in order for a felon to be "eligible" to vote; which is NOT necessarily the same thing as casting a vote on the ballot box.

Felons who pay their debt to society (probation, pardon, complete their sentence of incarceration) can register to vote but can't merely show up at a voting booth; they have to re-register?? Someone with a "final conviction" cannot even register to vote, so what exactly is that? Here is what it is NOT: a conviction on appeal; an indictment or merely prosecution for a crime; deferred adjudication (a type of probation that avoids a conviction if the person completes the terms required. Clear as glass; right!

Crystal Mason was already on probation from a federal tax fraud charge, and in addition to her case, the state of North Carolina convicted two felons who voted illegally; which brings up an important constitutional question: Can a Right guaranteed by the Constitution be revoked or diminished?

In Article 6, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) it stipulates that the Constitution is the Supreme "Law of the Land" and the 15th Amendment Section 1 says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Look up the word "abridged" in it's legal context. Also, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, when does committing a criminal act and labeled a felon deprive a person the Right guaranteed to them as a citizen? Once a Right is given it CANNOT be revoked under the Constitution. The State, or ANY jurisdiction, including Congress, cannot annul the privileges and immunities granted under the U.S. Constitution. It is quite surprising to me that such abuses have not been challenged in the Supreme Court or that the nation's highest judiciary would approve conduct which offends the Constitution.

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 15, 2019
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Wading into the murky same-sex marriage waters

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Thu, 16 May 2019 16:51:00 +0000

It is difficult to weight into the debate over same-sex marriage without being accused of bigotry or hatred against homosexuals, especially if your views are rejected by those of the GLBT community and their defenders; but couldn’t the shoe fit on the other foot as well? I mean, gay people and their supporters can be just as vitriolic, disrespectful, aggressive, threatening, and prone to violence as their opponents. Setting aside for the moment, all the emotion and name-calling by both sides and taking a deep breath with a fresh air of ‘perspective’ might help to diffuse the explosive nature of this cultural time bomb. For starters, both sides are right and wrong and should admit culpability in polarizing segments of society to further advance their own particular self-interest. The Christian community and their political surrogates want to use the Bible to impose religious standards into civil law; especially it seems by selecting certain passages from the Old Testament (Genesis and Leviticus) as well as the New Testament (Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Jude). The thing is though; the Bible has a lot more to say about fornication and harlotry/prostitution that it does homosexuality (the word is not even a Bible term). So why aren’t Bible-toting believers railing against sexual exploitation (especially of the youth and women), voyeurism, prostitution, pedophilia, pornography, nudity or adult-themed clubs/bars, magazines, television shows, and in movies as well as the pandering sales of erotic merchandise (sex toys and lingerie). Perhaps religious groups are actively involved in protesting against these offenders but it seems that their voices are the loudest or heard the most often when it pertains to same-sex relations; except maybe in the case of opposing the practice of abortion.

Now, the supporters of same-sex marriage make an appeal to history, archaeology or cultural anthropology to prove that homosexuality, or rather that relationships between members of the same sex/gender is not uncommon or an aberration because ancient civilizations have left behind ample records of such experiences. While that may very well be true, and doubtless one of more famous Greek philosophers in times past might have been involved with a male (“catamite”) to service his needs, or even among some modern Native American or African tribes such practices have doubtless been performed, still one has to ask if these groups or any society recognized, legitimized or promoted same-sex or gender neutral “marriage” as the term is employed today? In the case of Greek society in the time of Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato it would be quite plausible to believe that one of the great thinkers of the age could have had a male lover/servant (slave) who resided with his employer. I suppose that the person could be included in a will by their benefactor and legally inherit property but that doesn’t constitute conveyance of marital privileges or rights. In tribal societies there could have been a more presumably egalitarian social structure where gender identity was not limited to a strictly ‘binary’ construct of male/female; biologically speaking. There could be male, female, feminine male, or masculine female and within each distinctive group, rankings and privileges according to the needs, rules and customs of the people in that communal group. I think in many if not most of the cases, the male person had what was called “two spirits”(masculine/feminine or androgynous) and was seen more or less as a ‘special’ gift that was conveyed upon a shaman/priest/witchdoctor that was chosen to be in contact with the unseen supernatural world (ancestor spirits, animal spirits, gods [good/evil]). This person would be revered or feared and as a result due in part of his/her ‘peculiar’ nature, could have and enjoy the use of a same-sex male/male domestic relationship [variable or temporary/permanent].

The question to be asked is whether in ‘any’ previous human community, tribe, clan, society, culture, city-state, nation, or empire was there ever such as thing as the consummation of marriage that involved a same-sex couple (male/male or female/female)? Not only that, but even among the people who had such relations were those who engaged in this lifestyle were they a tiny minority or a significant part of the population? I mean, if it was normative then they would have constituted a larger part of the social environment; and did they, or do we/can we know for sure? I know I am getting into hot water here but I have to chance it- but what about conjugal privilege and procreation? This last part serves as a perfect segue into one of the most divisive parts of the entire argument, namely the ‘sexuality’ component. The religionists, moralists and social conservatives place too much emphasis on public displays of affection (PDA) among gay couples and what they do or how they do what they do behind closed doors. On the other hand, to disagree with my gay friends, there is no “equivalent” or “sameness” in what a man and woman do in romantic coupling in comparison to that of man/man or woman/woman intimate sexual contact. I believe the “only” thing that is not different between a heterosexual and homosexual couple is when it pertains to L-O-V-E, because it has no boundaries or limitations based on gender, sex, social rules, legal regulations, etc.

Lastly, I sympathize with a gay couple who want the religious sanction or sacrament of marriage just as much as certain legal rights upon receiving a marriage certificate issued by the state conveying such privileges authorized by law (state and federal). Just as marriage is more than procreation it has its socio-cultural historical significance and importance in religious ceremony and ritual as solemnizing the male/female pair as husband and wife, bride and groom; or using other such endearing terms and associational cognates. There is something special about that pronouncement and I don’t know if it can be replicated in invoking the wishes or goodwill upon a same-sex couple as spouse and spouse or just calling them as simply, ‘married.’ Another thorny issue is when gay couples adopt children, and because this is relatively new there are no longitudinal studies to determine the impact on young minds from being reared in same-sex households. How would a male be affected by two male parents where he would refer to both men as his father? How would a female react in the same situation and is she affected differently, especially if she were the boy’s sister? Conversely, how would a female be affected by having two moms; what about a male; or what if they were both raised by the women parents and is the girl going to be affected differently than her brother?

These are open-ended questions and concerns that Social Psychologists, Pediatricians, the AMA, ASCP, Congress, the Supreme Court, state legislatures and religious scholars may be woefully unable to answer, but the one thing is certain is that when we shout so loud as to drown out the other’s voice, while at the same time plugging up our own ears we will never be able to clearly and unbiasedly consider alternative points of view; but then again, maybe this was the goal all along.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 8, 2014
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Response to "The Mueller Report" by Alan Dershowitz

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Fri, 03 May 2019 04:32:00 +0000

Famed Harvard professor and part of O.J. Simpson's Murder Trial "Dream Team" appeared on ABC's "The View" on May 2, 2019 to promote his book, "The Mueller Report." In an excerpt in Section D. The Report: Obstruction of Justice Dershowitz sets out to explain the elements of a crime, where every crime requires both an actus reus (a criminal act) and a mens rea (an unlawful; a corrupt intent). He goes on to say that you must first establish an illegal act. The ancient principle of nulla poena sine lege means that no one can be punished for doing an act that is not prohibited by law. However, an act might not be unlawful but it does not necessarily make it lawful.

Applying the principle of Obstruction of Justice, president Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey leads to the question of exercising the authority of the Chief Executive under Article II of the Constitution. Dershowitz doesn't believe that the motive or intent in doing so matters; ONLY the fact that he can. President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinburger as an example, but it doesn't seem to apply in this particular case to me. Dershowitz contends that Mueller misinterpreted Constitutional Law in a section entitled: Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice where Mueller stated that the first element of obstruction is "an obstructive act." Perhaps Alan Dershowitz should have familiarized himself with 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which states:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

This statute refers to the act; without consideration to intent. Continuing further in his copied excerpt; Dershowitz says: The [Mueller] report cites a handful of lower-court cases, all wrongly decided in my view, for the proposition that “an improper motive can render an actor’s conduct criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor’s authority.” (Disclaimer: I litigated one of those cases.) This wrongheaded conclusion contradicts hundreds of years of precedents requiring that the act itself must be unlawful -- the concept of actus rea discussed above -- and that an improper motive cannot convert a lawful act into a crime.

The Mueller Report correctly concludes that there are no Supreme Court decisions or even Department of Justice positions that directly resolve the issue of whether “the president’s exercises of his constitutional authority to terminate an FBI director and to close investigations” can constitutionally constitute an obstruction of justice. In every case this is true and there is the standing DOJ guidelines against bringing charges against a president while in office. However, if the president is the "subject" of the investigation can he use the power of his office to terminate that investigation; to infect or undermine its legitimacy and legality? Dershowitz completely misses the point, or is he trying misdirection or obfuscation by continually referring to the broader issue of presidential authority to fire someone as opposed to the narrow and specific 'act' done, not as a matter of prerogative or discretion, but as a means to subvert a legitimate investigation into whether president Trump violated federal law; or encouraged others to do so, such as lying to the FBI or Congress.

Dershowitz continues in this copied excerpt: The Mueller Report seems to agree, saying that “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence. . . .” But that is not what President Trump has been accused of by the Mueller Report. What he is accused of -- especially in firing Comey -- is far more analogous to the pardoning decision made by President Bush. This is also not correct because, whether Mueller mentioned it or not, the statements by Trump himself based on the
following:

President Trump had or placed 2 telephone calls to FBI Director James Comey on March 30 and April 11, where he mentioned that the Russia investigation was “a cloud that was impairing his ability as president” and that he wanted him to “lift the cloud.” On May 11, 2017 Trump, in an interview with Lester Holt of NBC News, says he had already decided to fire Comey before receiving Rosenstein's recommendation. "Regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey," Trump tells NBC. Trump also says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he made the decision. "When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

Dershowitz concludes by saying as a civil libertarian who cares deeply about the fair application of the rule of law to all, I have tried to apply neutral, nonpartisan principles to my analysis of the legal and civil liberties issues surrounding this investigation. I have refused to substitute partisan wishful thinking for neutral analysis of the law and facts. I have refused to substitute partisan wishful thinking for neutral analysis of the law and facts. I think that Law professor and Attorney Dershowitz is not as impartial as he claims and ignores a pattern of behavior based on actions and statements by president Trump that meets the 'reasonableness' threshold that supports a violation of federal law. Even the encouragement of others to commit illegal acts, regardless of whether they did or not, constitutes "intent." The notion that the Mueller Report totally exonerates president Trump is nonsense. The ONLY thing that it concludes is that Trump cannot be proven guilty of Collusion; which is NOT a crime in the legal sense of the word. What is concerning is that Mueller DID find over 10 instances of 'potential' Obstruction of Justice incidents, which he left it up to Congress to decide what to do.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

May 2, 2019

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

It seems WA State teachers strikes becoming all too familiar

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 22:16:00 +0000

The next most difficult and challenging profession to being a parent is teaching. It goes without saying that anyone who takes upon themselves the commitment and responsibility for teaching our youth should be well-paid, but how do you determine adequate compensation? The WA State McCleary decision of January 2012 mandated the state fully fund K-12 public schools, as required by Article IX of the state Constitution; which includes 1 billion dollars for teacher salaries.

The minimum requirement to qualify for a teacher is a Bachelor's degree and earning a starting salary of $53,353. The earnings vary by city, county, school district or population. Edmonds has a population of 42,623 but the starting teacher salary is $58,262. Mukilteo 's population is 22,034 with a starting salary of $67,540. Contrast this with a Seattle population of 776,013 and a teacher salary of $59,174; and the median income is $38,211 in King County. Is this adequate? Puyallup teachers are on strike but the average income in Pierce County is $27,446 and the city of Tacoma, with a population of 218,511 pays teachers $53,611.

The average teacher salary across the entire U.S. is $58,950 but the starting salary is $38,617; so the issue is more about not being competitive with other industries in the private sector or working for state or federal agencies.That is always an option, and doubtless some teachers could get a job but many of them might not because their particular degree, experience or skill set might not be in demand. I wonder if the education of our children is not being politicized by the teachers unions and the real victims in all of this are our kids. There is something wrong in our society when every few years teachers walk the picket lines. Is it the teachers, their unions, the state department of education, or the politicians? In the meantime, thousands of schoolchildren would be waiting and want to be in class.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

September 7, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is president Trump and Evangelical supporters on the wrong side of the Immigration debate?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 07:12:00 +0000

Donald Trump as president-Elect promised to build a Wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. A little over a year and nothing but a few larger-than-life pillars, but no 'wall.' And besides all that, our southernmost neighbor says they aren't going to pay for it. The thing is, though, militarizing our borders is not the answer and setting immigration policy is the purview of Congress (Article 1, Section 8); not by presidential Executive Order. “Wikipedia” mentions that the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) administered federal immigration laws and regulations including the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8, United States Code).

In the early 1900s Congress's primary interest in immigration was to protect American workers and wages. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was formed in 1933 by a merger of the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization; both agencies were under the Department of Labor. President Franklin Roosevelt moved the INS from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice in 1940. On March 1, 2003, most of the INS functions ceased to exist, becoming 3 new entities as they are today- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – within the newly created Department of Homeland Security.

Now that the historical part of immigration has been established, let's look at some passages from the Old Testament for the benefit of Christian Evangelicals who don't support amnesty for DACA (“Dreamers”) as well as are hardened to the breakup of families and want protection from dangerous persons (criminals, drug dealers, rapists), migrant laborers, hospitality industry/service workers).

Genesis 20: 1

Abraham moved south to the Negev and lived for a while between Kadesh and Shur, and then he moved on to Gerar. While living there as a foreigner (undocumented illegal/resident alien). NLT

Genesis 21: 34

After this, Abraham resided as a foreigner in Philistine territory for a long period of time. ISV

Exodus 12: 49

The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you." NIV

Exodus 22: 21

"You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners (illegal aliens) in the land of Egypt. NLT

Leviticus 19: 33-34a

‘When a stranger (foreigner/illegal alien) resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong (injustice).‘The stranger (legal resident/undocumented citizen??) who resides with you shall be to you as the native (or naturalized citizen; in the modern sense) among you,

Deuteronomy 24: 14

"Never take advantage of poor and destitute laborers, whether they are fellow Israelites or foreigners living in your towns. NLT

Deuteronomy 27: 19

'The one who denies justice to a resident alien, a fatherless child, or a widow is cursed.' And all the people will say, 'Amen!' CSB

1 Chronicles 22: 2

So David gave orders to gather the foreigners who were in the land of Israel, and he set stone cutters to hew out stones to build the house of God.

NOTE: Some of these resident aliens were highly skilled Masons, which means they knew mathematics, engineering, architectural drawing, blueprint reading, calculus and not criminals or low-skilled manual laborers.

2 Chronicles 2: 17

Then Solomon counted all the resident aliens who were in the land of Israel, after the census of them that David his father had taken, and there were found 153,600. ESV

NOTE: Resident/illegal aliens were not “undocumented citizens” as they were included in the national census; sounds like prudent government policy to a wise King Solomon.

REFERENCE

Eastons Bible Dictionary:

Alien

a foreigner, or person born in another country, and therefore not entitled to the rights and privileges [as a native/indigenous citizen or resident] of the country where he resides.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

April 5, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Gun control and using good moral judgment

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:56:00 +0000

I think one of the issues regarding sensible gun control is whether someone is responsible enough to own a gun. It is not about an age requirement or having a mental illness, but how do you determine if a person has the social maturity? Owning a gun means that you are saying that you are willing to take a human life; to kill someone in a situation where there is a threat of serious bodily injury or to preserve and protect life.

You are saying that there was no reasonable alternative and that such a dire act was necessary; barring any other duty to retreat or mitigate the situation, that such an effort failed or was impractical or impossible. You are admitting that you can make a split-second Life and Death decision without premeditation, malice, intent, recklessness, or negligently AND that you can live with the consequences without any apology or second-guessing; with a 'clear conscience' and in a similar situation, would do exactly the same thing.

ADDENDUM:

Nine Reasons to own a gun/firearm:

1. The Second Amendment.

2. It is my God-given right.

3. I belong to a hunter-gather society/culture and do so for survival.

4. To fight off a Martian invasion.

5. To hunt animals for sport.

6. To protect personal property.

7. I want to be armed for the coming “Race war” between Blacks and Whites.

8. To protect life or against serious personal/bodily injury.

9. For no other reason but, simply because I can and want to.

There is no test, qualification or legislation that can determine who will exercise 'reasonable' moral judgment/discernment under duress and stress when confronted with a life and death decision. Police officers are specially trained in the use of firearms but even they make mistakes. It is one thing to hit the bulls eye or near center mass on a cardboard target that is not shooting back, but it is quite another when facing a situation where a weapon is directed towards you which could end your life. If law enforcement officials, who face unknown, unpredictable, dangerous and potentially dangerous situations on a daily basis, fail to always act rationally, then how can the average citizen be expected to do so? It is not about the NRA, Congress, your family and friends, but you. Can you pass the test or do you even want to take it? There are no make-up exams because once you fail this test, somebody dies; do you want this on your conscience for the rest of your life? You decide.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 27, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Time-traveler's claim just a big waste of Time?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:19:00 +0000

A video of a time traveler claiming to be from the year 6000 AD was on ApexTV lately. He says: Human government will cease to exist in 6000 AD. This is going to really upset those Christian believers who are looking for “The Rapture” and Jesus' return soon (in this generation). It seems that A.I. units takes over human government because they are more efficient and do not make emotion-based decisions. I can think of several movies about the machines taking over. I wonder how much shares of stock in A.I. start-up companies will be worth in four-thousand years? Humans will achieve near-immortality by downloading their consciousness in computers or virtual reality worlds (sounds familiar??). I suppose this is an option or alternative of going to Heaven or Hell after death?

Humans and cities will be shrunk down. I guess it's more efficient and economical that way, and resources last longer. This sounds like someone met the living-computer called “Brainiac” from Superman's (Kal-El) planet Krypton, who's LEVEL-10 super-intelligence created a shrinking ray, unleashing it on the city and inhabitants of 'Kandor.' Either that, or someone stole the formula of Dr. Henry Pym's “Pym particles” (used by Ant-Man/Giant-Man). As proof of time-travel the visitor provided a hazy-looking photo, supposedly showing a futuristic city but says time-travel distorted the picture. He might have had me convinced up until that point. Four-thousand years of advancement and he could not preserve photographic evidence or other proof except a fuzzy picture that even the technology of today could do a better job.

He brought no scientific devices or instruments from the future; not even a data recorder; something or anything that might have made his claims more believable. He did not even say if Donald Trump would be reelected as POTUS, or not. I guess we'll just have to wait for the next time-traveler to show up, or until the year 2028, when according to this visitor from the future, the government will finally reveal its time-traveling program; something to look forward to; I guess. Oh, I almost forgot, since he's from the future, he knows, or should know I am writing this article, so if he wants to prove me wrong, I am waiting. Well, nothing yet; so, I guess I'm right, then.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

February 19, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Reflections on the Stoneman Douglas HS mass shooting

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Sun, 18 Feb 2018 05:48:00 +0000

The recent mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL has left parents, teachers, law enforcement, local as well as federal legislators struggling to find answers to the growing and alarming rise in these deadly incidents. This tragedy evokes strong passions, but the reality is somewhere in America, another troubled, young male is planning the next mass shooting. You don't need an AR-15 to kill a lot of people; any automatic or semi-automatic model is just as deadly efficient. Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen said about the FL mass shootings “If it was a Muslim or a Mexican [non-White] doing the shooting, how many new laws and how much money would we spend then to stop the madness?” Is he saying what many people really feel but are afraid to admit it? Black or Hispanic shootings are usually gang or drug-related (robbery), gambling debts, and sometimes deadly violence happens due to arguments and fights over a female.

So, instead of looking at the problem from the outside in, why not consider a view from the inside out. On the show “Criminal Minds” federal agents from the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) profile perpetrators of the most horrific crimes by establishing a profile of the unidentified suspect (“unsub”) so that they can understand the motive and pattern to predict when and where the next attack is likely to happen. I think the same kind of process can be utilized in these cases in an attempt to intervene before a series of events turns into an active shooter situation. The first thing to consider is what are the most important and powerful influences in a young persons life. Let's start with the environment where they are socialized or learn their values, and the second, and in some cases the most important is, “peer group” pressure.

Has the person learned empathy or sensitivity to the pain or suffering of others; or is such a one indifferent to anyone experiencing it? There are kids who grow up taking pleasure in killing insects, torturing or enjoying seeing animals undergoing such things. Another indicator is how a child treats toys, or to put it another way, are the toys mangled or are dolls heads ripped (twisted) off or hair ripped out, etc. Does a child beat the stuffings out of a soft toy? This is different from the normal rough play or wear-and-tear that kids have with their playthings. Sadistic tendencies develop quite early and should not have gone unnoticed. Does the person have siblings, and if so, what is their level of interaction- close or distant? Is he being raised by a female single- parent and does she work long hours where he has a lot of time to himself? Does the male have a relationship or contact with his father? Or are the parents or legal guardian spending quality time as a family or too busy working?

Now let's look at school; This is probably a socially isolated male with very few friends, who is not popular or in the mix. This male is not playing sports, or is athletic, and it is doubtful that he is dating or ever had a girlfriend; and if he did, they broke up. He might not be a total 'nerd' but is probably someone that avoids crowds and usually talks with 1 or 2 male classmates on occasion. There is a lot of time spend online posting what might be considered a manifesto (diary) of what he thinks about or rather what he wants the world to know; it may not even be what he really believes but what he wants others to believe he does. The most important question to ask is, “What triggered this act;”What is the “traumatic event” that set things in motion where someone planned to kill (murder) innocent people without a cause? Is this an act of revenge, or why target the people that he did? Is this person preoccupied with all things pertaining to death or mas shootings?

Former classmates of the suspect Nicolas Cruz say they weren’t surprised to discover he was the alleged gunman.“I can’t say I was shocked,” Joshua Charo “From past experiences, he seemed like the kind of kid who would do something like this.” “I think everyone had in their minds if anybody was going to do it, it was going to be him,” Dakota Mutchler,“A lot of people were saying it was going to be him,” Eddie Bonilla, another student, “A lot of kids joked around like that, saying that he was going to be the one to shoot up the school. But it turns out everyone predicted it.” “All he would talk about is guns, knives and hunting,” Charo said. “He used to tell me he would shoot rats with his BB gun and he wanted this kind of gun, and how he liked to always shoot for practice.” Mutchler said Cruz often boasted on Instagram about killing animals and that “he started progressively getting a little more weird.” “He was that weird kid that you see,” Daniel Huerfano, another former classmate, told the AP. “Like a loner.” The question is, why didn't these students contact law enforcement because these were serious concerns?

Continuing further: Broward County Commissioner Beam Furr told CNN that Cruz had been receiving treatment at a mental health clinic, but stopped going about a year ago. Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that he did not know of any threats posed by Cruz to the school- But Jim Gard, a math teacher at the school, told the Miami Herald that administrators had identified Cruz as a potential threat Gard remembered that the school administration had previously sent out an email warning teachers about Cruz.“We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him,” Gard said. “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.” Did school administrators contact the parent or guardian about the reason for the expulsion and was the sheriff's department notified about the threats? Was the parent or legal guardian aware that Nicolas was not taking his medication or receiving treatment at the clinic?

BuzzFeed reports that in September, a YouTube user Ben Bennight alerted the FBI that a commenter posted an alarming remark on one of his videos.“I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” wrote the commenter named Nikolas Cruz. According to Bennight, FBI agents conducted an in-person interview with him the following day. “They came to my office the next morning and asked me if I knew anything about the person,” Bennight said. “I didn’t. They took a copy of the screenshot and that was the last I heard from them.” Protocols were not followed on information received by Public Access Line (PAL) tip line regarding Nicolas Cruz. The staff and supervisor associated with that department should be severely reprimanded and terminated because this is a failure of epic proportions.

What purpose does it serve or satisfy to take someone's life; to shed innocent blood? Is it merely or simply to become “famous?” I think “Columbine” is like a pole vault event of school mass shootings where the bar is set so high and like an athletic completion, these sociopath or psychopath entrants want to pass over the bar; thereby setting a new record. Their legacy and purpose in life is to go down in the annals of history as one of the biggest mass murders in America; what a legacy. Sounds far-fetched?? EVERETT, Wash. - An Everett teen is under arrest Wednesday after police found evidence that he was in the advanced stages of plotting a shooting at his high school, writing in his journal that "I can't wait to ... to blow all those (expletive) away," court documents state.

The investigation into the 18-year-old ACES Alternative High School student began when his grandmother called 911 on Tuesday to report what she believed were credible threats by her grandson to shoot other students at the school, according to the court file. Excerpts from the teen's journal that said, in part, "I'm preparing myself for the school shooting. I can't wait. My aim has gotten much more accurate. ... I can't wait to walk into that class and blow all those (expletive) away," police reports say. The teen continued by writing, "I need to make this shooting/bombing ... infamous. I need to get the biggest fatality number I possibly can. I need to make this count. … I'm learning from past shooters/bombers mistakes, so I don't make the same ones," according to the case file. Everett police said. Detectives served a search warrant at the grandmother’s house and seized the grandson's journal, semiautomatic rifle, military-styled inert grenades and other items.

This is not a political issue, nor does it have to do with mental health, but if our children are acting this way it is an indictment against our entire American society and values. The American Dream is turning into a waking nightmare as teenagers, especially males, are in pain, crying out for help, and because “WE” have failed them, they see no way of escape but to end their lives and murder others along the way. When will we as adults finally hear the terrifying screams and wake up from our self-induced coma to bring healing to our kids and ourselves before it is too late and there is nothing left to save.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA98402

February 14, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

The U.S. government planning to borrow a record-setting 1 trillion dollars

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 07:11:00 +0000

It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget. That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017. Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents release Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.

Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law. The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas. “We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again. Trump didn't mention the debt or the ongoing budget deficits in his State of the Union address. The absence of any mention of the national debt was frustrating for Goldwein and others who warn that America has a major economic problem looming. “It is terrible. Those deficits and the debt that keeps rising is a serious problem, not only in the long run, but right now,” Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a former Reagan adviser, told Bloomberg.

The White House got a taste of just how problematic this debt situation could get this week. Investors are concerned about all the additional borrowing and the likelihood of higher inflation, which is why the interest rates on U.S. government bonds hit the highest level since 2014. That, in turn, partly drove the worst weekly sell-off in the stock market in two years. The belief in Washington and on Wall Street has long been that the U.S. government could just keep issuing debt because people around the world are eager to buy up this safe-haven asset. But there may be a limit to how much the market wants, especially if inflation starts rising and investors prefer to ditch bonds for higher-returning stocks.

Fiscal policy is just out of control,” says Peter Davis, a former tax economist in Congress who now runs Davis Capital Investment Ideas. The Federal Reserve was also buying a lot of U.S. Treasury debt since the crisis, helping to beef up demand. But the Fed recently decided to stop doing that now that the economy has improved. It's another wrinkle as Treasury has to look for new buyers. Tedeschi, the former Treasury adviser to the Obama administration, calls it “concerning, but not a crisis.” Still, he says it's a “big risk” to plan on borrowing so much in the coming years. Trump's Treasury forecasts borrowing over $1 trillion in 2019 and over $1.1 trillion in 2020. Before taking office, Trump described himself as the “king of debt,” although he campaigned on reducing the national debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the U.S. deficit will hit $1 trillion by 2019 and stay there for a while. The latest borrowing figure — $955 billion — released this week was determined from a survey of bond market participants, who tend to be even faster to react to the changing policy landscape and change their forecasts. Both parties claim they want to be “fiscally responsible,” but Goldwein says they both pass legislation that adds to the debt. Politicians argue this is the last time they'll pass a bill that makes the deficit worse, but so far, they just keep going.

The latest example of largesse is the GOP tax bill. It's expected to add $1 trillion or more to the debt, according to nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (and yes, that's after accounting for some increased economic growth). But even before that, Goldwein points to the 2015 extension of many tax cuts and the 2014 delays in Medicare reimbursement cuts. “Every time you feed your addiction, you grow your addiction,” says Goldwein. There doesn't seem to be any appetite for budgetary restraint in Washington, but the market may force Congress' hand.

OUR NATIONAL DEBT

$20,538,648,349,072

YOUR family share $242, 553

THE NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

REFERENCE: The Washington Post (article quoted in its entirety)

U.S. Government debt- is the total outstanding borrowing of a central government, comprising of internal debt (owing to national creditors) and external debt (owing to foreign creditors), incurred in financing its expenditure.

U.S. Government deficit- The amount by which a government's expenditures exceed its tax revenues. The difference is made up for by borrowing from the public through the issuance of debt. also called Federal Debt.

COMMENTARY: The $1.5 trillion dollar “tax cut” means that amount of revenue will not be used to pay government expenditures; which means that the amount will be added to the federal deficit. Either the government will have to slash government expenditures (which is highly unlikely) or have to borrow the money by selling government securities to “buyers” (Federal Reserve, foreign investors/central banks, etc.) to pay its bills. It is curious that president Trump hasn't said anything about the national debt or the deficit; nor have any members of Congress-why??

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

February 2, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

AFL-CIO president weighs in on president Trump's SOTU speech

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 05:44:00 +0000

Donald Trump, even as a candidate talked about how much he cares for the blue collar American worker in the manufacturing sectors in “Rust Belt” states, but AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says president Donald Trump has “actively hurt” U.S. Workers. Trump “joined with corporations and their political allies to undermine the right of workers to bargain collectively and made our workplaces less safe. Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure, but would include only $200 billion in federal funds – with the rest coming from states, cities and private-public “partnerships.” Critics fear that most of the private-public money would wind up in Wall Street’s pockets, rather than fixing the nation’s roads, bridges, railroads, airports and Internet infrastructure. Tax credits would go to private developers and investors, who will line their pockets by issuing bonds for toll roads through rich communities, while refusing to fund new water pipes in poor neighborhoods. Let's look at a run down of the SOTU speech:

TRUMP: Created 200,000 manufacturing jobs.

FACTS: 93,000 manufacturing jobs have been outsourced.

TRUMP: New tax plan ($1.5T tax cut).

FACTS: The law will make it tax-free for employers to create overseas subsidiaries.

TRUMP: I did away with more regulation than any other president.

FACTS: Trump eliminated regulations that protected workers health and safety. Companies lose 150 workers daily lost to occupational injuries and disease. Trump proposes a budget to slash safety research dollars that eliminate safety and health training for workers. Employers are not “required” to record injuries anymore (or that the occurrences/incidents are not reported as such). Delays standards to protect worker health and safety like silica or mine safety inspections.

TRUMP: Rising wages for American workers.

FACTS: Actually Trump's plan lowered wages by taking away OT or the way employers calculate it for about 5 million workers.

TRUMP: $200B for infrastructure projects ($20B for 10 years).

FACTS: The Society of Civil Engineers say that over 3 trillion dollars are needed to repair our old infrastructure and create a new system well into the next century.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

February 1, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

president Donald Trump's 2018 State of the Union Address

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Wed, 31 Jan 2018 06:32:00 +0000

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 6:00 EST, Donald Trump gave his first SOTU speech as POTUS. His discourse lasted 1hour and 20 minutes, covering a variety of issues important to the American people and members of Congress. It is not unusual for presidents to embellish a little and try to spin a narrative that shows them in the best light, and that their policies and leadership is better than the previous administration or political party. It is now time to Fact-Check some of these claims to see whether they are true or not; as below in the following:

TRUMP: "We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reform in American history."

FACTS: Valued at $1.5 trillion over 10 years, the plan is indeed large and expensive. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, president Trump's is the eighth biggest since 1918. As a percentage of the total economy, Reagan's 1981 cut is the biggest.

TRUMP: "After years and years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages."

FACTS: Average hourly pay rose 2.5 percent in 2017, slightly slower than the 2.9 percent increase recorded in 2016 under President Barack Obama.

TRUMP: The unemployment rate stands at a 17-year low (4.1%).

FACTS: True. The last time unemployment was this low, in the late 1990s, average hourly pay was rising at a 4 percent pace.

TRUMP: "We have ended the war on American energy."

FACTS: Advances in hydraulic fracturing before Trump became president made it economical to tap vast reserves of natural gas. Oil production also greatly increased, reducing imports. Before the 2016 presidential election, the U.S. for the first time in decades was getting more energy domestically than it imports.

TRUMP: "We are now very proudly an exporter of energy to the world."

FACTS: Nothing new here because the U.S. has long exported all sorts of energy to other parts of the world. If Trump means a “net” importer, the U.S. Energy Information Agency projects that the U.S. will become a net energy exporter in the next decade, primarily because of a boom in oil and gas production that began before Trump's presidency.

TRUMP: "We slashed the business tax rate from 35 percent all the way down to 21 percent, and these changes alone are estimated to increase average family income by more than $4,000.

FACTS: This figure comes from Trump's chief economist, Kevin Hassett, but many mainstream economists poked wide holes into this claim. The problem with the $4,000 claim is that Trump is essentially promising $500 billion in income gains across the entire economy from tax cuts that are a small fraction of that total on an annual basis.

TRUMP: "Since we passed tax cuts, roughly 3 million workers have already gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands and thousands of dollars per worker."

FACTS: This is mostly true, but according to Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group, about 3 million workers have gotten bonuses, raises or larger payments to their retirement accounts. That's about 2 percent of the more than 154 million Americans with jobs. The Labor Department said before the tax package was signed into law that 38 percent of workers would probably get some form of bonus in 2017. Few companies have yet granted across-the-board pay raises, though.

TRUMP: "Many car companies are now building and expanding plants in the United States, something we haven't seen for decades."

FACTS: As Alec Baldwin would say, “Wrong.” Toyota opened its Mississippi factory in 2011. Hyundai's plant in Alabama dates to 2005. In 2010, Tesla fully acquired and updated an old factory to produce its electric vehicles. Trump also declared that "Chrysler is moving a major plant from Mexico to Michigan” but actually, Chrysler announced it will move production of heavy-duty pickup trucks from Mexico to Michigan, but the plant is not closing in Mexico. It will start producing other vehicles for global sales and no change in its workforce is anticipated.

TRUMP: "We repealed the core of the disastrous Obamacare — the individual mandate is now gone."

FACTS: Alec Baldwin says, “Wrong;” again. No, it's not gone. It will expire in 2019. People who go without insurance this year are still subject to fines. Congress did repeal the unpopular requirement that most Americans carry insurance or risk a tax penalty, but that takes effect next year. Significant parts of ObamaCare (“AHA”) of the overhaul remain in place, including its Medicaid expansion, protections for people with pre-existing conditions, guaranteed "essential" health benefits, and subsidized private health insurance for people with modest incomes.

TRUMP: "Our massive tax cuts provide tremendous relief for the middle class and small business."

FACTS: Most Americans will pay less in taxes this year. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that about 80 percent of U.S. households will get a tax cut, with about 15 percent seeing little change and 5 percent paying more. Middle-class households — defined as those making between roughly $49,000 and $86,000 a year — will see their tax bills drop by about $930, the Tax Policy Center calculates. That will lift their after-tax incomes by 1.6 percent. The richest 1 percent, meanwhile, will save $51,140, lifting their after-tax incomes by 3.4 percent, or more than twice as much as the middle class.

TRUMP: “I am proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated very close to 100 percent of the territory just recently held by these killers in Iraq and in Syria and in other locations, as well.”

FACTS: Although it's true that the Islamic State group has lost nearly 100 percent of the territory it held in Syria and Iraq when the U.S. began airstrikes in both countries in 2014, Syria remains wracked by civil war, with much of that country controlled by the government of Russian ally Syrian President Bashar Assad and not by U.S.-allied groups. he progress cited by Trump did not start with his presidency. The U.S.-led coalition recaptured much land, including several key cities in Iraq, before he took office. And the assault on Mosul, which was the extremists' main stronghold in northern Iraq, was begun during the Obama administration.

REFERENCE

Associated Press writers Josh Boak, Matthew Daly, Josh Lederman, Robert Burns and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

January 30, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Sexual misconduct the result of White male power and privilege

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 18:57:00 +0000

It's time to get real serious and honest about sexual assault. Ever since Rose McGowan accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual abuse or rape, almost everyday since that time there seems to be one story after another about some notable male person being charged with sexual misconduct; from Roger Ailes to judge Roy Moore of Alabama, former president George H.W. Bush, Comedian C.K. Louis, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, and the latest, co-anchor Charlie Rose of CBS This Morning and Director Oliver Stone. The fact is, this behavior should not surprise many American because it is nothing new. Hollywood is certainly not H-o-l-y-wood, and who can forget all the salacious sexual content during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing before the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Supreme Court Justice. White men forcibly raped their Black female slaves with impunity and does not the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence attest that . . .ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? This was no accident but intentional and women were not given the right to vote ("suffrage") until 1920, half a century after freed slaves were allowed to exercise the franchise.

When former president Bill Clinton appeared on the Oprah show and she asked him about why he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. At first he paused, and then after pondering for a few moments, said quite frankly, "I did it because I could." This is the crux or focal point of White male power that translates into privilege because for the most simple of reasons, you do it because you can. Think about it for a minute, who controls all the institutions of power in America? If any woman is in a position of power in this country, a more powerful man, whether a husband, father, or a group of White men exercise control over all important economic, religious, legal, military, political or other decision-making systems that control the allocation of resources and the valuation of such in society. While due to the current situation and all the attention a few individuals have been publicly exposed and shamed, it is reasonable that a few of them will receive some kind of legal sanction or punishment, but it won't really change anything from a macro level because women are not valued the same as White men; earning roughly $0.72 to each dollar that a male is paid for the same type of work. Like any scandal, this too will blow over and people will eventually forget about it when the next mass shooting or terrorist attack happens, and the major news networks bombards the airwaves as well as social media with unrelenting, repetitive and continuous round the clock coverage.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

November 21, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

The Federal Reserve and money creation

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:13:00 +0000

It must be realized that while money may represent an asset when considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not that at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think he has increased his financial position by that amount, but he has not. That $1,000 asset is offset by a loan liability of the same amount; thus his “net” cash position is zero. So, if you were to add up all the bank deposits in the nation the ‘net’ balance would be zero because every bit of this money is owed by somebody. Someone has to borrow every dollar that is in circulation, whether it is cash or credit; otherwise we all starve. Also, no matter where you work or earn money, it’s “origin” was a bank and its ultimate “destination” is to be deposited into a bank. Now, let’s see how money is created. The Federal Reserve purchases government bonds from the U.S. Treasury (not bought by the public) by writing a check to Congress in exchange for them (there is no money deposited anywhere to back up this check). By calling these bonds “Reserve Notes” the Federal Reserve uses them as a base for “creating” nine additional dollars for every dollar created on top of the bonds themselves. Some of the money is spent by the government while the rest is used as the source for bank loans made to businesses and individuals. Incidentally, the Federal Reserve charges and collects ‘interest’ payments on money it creates out of nothing. The benefit to Congress is that it now has access to unlimited funding without having to tell the public that they are paying a “tax” on this ‘fiat’ currency through the loss of purchasing power called “inflation.”

The U.S. Treasury printing press adds ink to pieces of paper (commercial paper??) and creates impressive designs around the edges, and calls this creation a Treasury Note/Bond. This is merely a government IOU or promise to pay a specified sum and accrued interest at some definite time in the future. In reality, the government has created cash (technically), but it doesn’t look like or have the function of currency/cash as of yet. This Bond/Note is purchased by the Federal Reserve where it is now considered an “asset” because it is backed by the government (“full faith and credit”) as good to pay the money back because of its taxing authority. The Federal Reserve can use this asset to offset any “liability” that it incurs in making loans to the banks. Now the Federal Reserve “creates” this liability by adding ink to yet another piece of paper and exchanging it with the government (U.S. Treasury). This second piece of paper becomes a Federal Reserve Check (although there is no money in any account to cover this check). This Check is received back at the U.S. Treasury department where it is endorsed (“legal tender”) and sent back to one of the Federal Reserve branch banks and deposited into the government’s account; where it pays government expenses. After that, it is transformed into many checks, becoming the ‘first wave’ of fiat money flooding into the economy (“money supply”).

Recipients of these checks deposit them into their own bank accounts where they become commercial bank deposits. Federal Reserve guidelines stipulate that these deposits are classified as “fractional reserves” because banks are permitted to hold as little as 10% in ‘reserve,’ while the remainder are called “excess reserves.” This makes these monies available to be converted into bank loans. Since it would be illegal to have a double-claim on the same money (customers’ deposits and borrower’s loans) the Federal Reserve merely creates money out of thin air for the purpose of backing the ‘excess reserve’ loan amounts. When this “second wave” of fiat money moves into the general economy, it comes right back into the banking system. What was a” loan” on Friday comes back as a “deposit” on Monday. This deposit is again reclassified as a “reserve” and ninety percent becomes “excess” and the process keeps repeating itself all over again. Now are you getting the picture? It takes about twenty-eight times of passing through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans before it finally maxes out. The amount of fiat money created by the Federal Reserve is approximately nine times the amount of the “original” government debt which made the entire process possible.

When banks run short on money the Federal Reserve stands ready as “the lender of last resort” to make loans available to them. Banks usually hold “reserves” of about 1-2% of deposits in vault cash and 8-9% in securities; so their operating margin is extremely thin. It is not uncommon for a bank to experience a temporary negative balance, caused by unusually high customer/depositor cash demand, or on large clusters of checks clearing through other banks at the same time. When a bank borrows a dollar from the Federal Reserve it becomes a one-dollar reserve. Since banks are required to keep reserves of only about ten percent, it means they can actually lend up to nine dollars for each dollar they borrow from the Federal Reserve. This is certainly a profit incentive for the bank, and it goes something like this: Some bank borrows one million dollars from the Federal Reserve and is charged an annual interest rate of 8%, so the total amount it has to pay on this loan is $80,000 ($1,000,000 x 0.08 = $80,000). The bank treats this loan as a cash deposit where it will be used as a basis for manufacturing an additional nine million dollars to be loaned out to borrowers. Let’s say the bank charges 11% annual interest on $9,000,000 in loans; that would amount to a whopping $990,000 ($9,000,000 x 0.11 = $990,000). But don’t forget that the additional income generated from this loan amount now becomes part of the overall money supply of the nation.

Here is a sober lesson for those advocates who want to pay off the national debt. Since our money supply, at the present time at least, is tied to the national debt, paying off the debt would cause money to disappear; consequently we would starve to death because how would we pay for anything? Even to seriously reduce it would cripple the economy. The Federal Reserve holds about 7% of the national debt, and since the money supply is pyramided roughly ten times (on top of government bonds), each dollar eliminated from the national debt would cause the money supply to contract dramatically ($1.00 x .07 x10 = $0.70). That’s right; for each debt that would be paid down or eliminated also means that the dollar would also shrink down to where everything balances to zero. So, debt is necessary- it’s just the management of that debt which poses the greatest problem.

NOTE: This information resourced from online and printed materials.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

November 2, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

President Trump launches verbal tirade against Black NFL players anthem protest

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:15:00 +0000

President Trump launches verbal tirade against Black NFL players anthem protest

The National Anthem protest started by former San Francisco Forty-niner QB Colin Kapernick jumped into high gear on Sunday, September 24, 2017, as more than 200 professional players and their coaches stayed in the locker room, locked arms in solidarity or took a knee at the singing of the National Anthem. While it can be argued that a sports event is not necessarily the best place to make a political statement, the comments by the Commander-in-Chief is inexcusable. It is one thing to disagree with the actions of the athletes, who are predominately Black, as they are the most affected by racial injustice, but to refer to them as “sons-of-bitches” is beyond the pale. Where was all this indignation and fury several weeks ago against the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, VA? The thing that is even more troubling is when fans of the game suggestions that these players should leave the country; and where should they go-back to Africa, perhaps?? Well, as Whoopie Goldberg once said on ABC's “The View”-”We ain't goin' nowhere, and have just as much of a right to be here as anyone else.”

It is interesting to hear about all this talk of dishonoring the country and flag by African-American professional footballers but fail to realize the sacrifices that African slaves and their descendants made for this country. Chrispus Attucks, a slave, was the first person to shed his blood at the Boston Massacre during the First American Revolution. Black slaves were decisive in the Union army gaining victory over the Confederate army in the American Civil War; and so on. Yet, there are those who will stipulate the “when” “where” and “what” is the proper forum or venue to have a peaceful and silent redress of grievances; though as free citizens we need their permission, understanding or toleration. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees all citizens certain protections, privileges or rights, and it is this document alone, which gives meaning to the flag, our form of government and national identity. There is no citizenship or patriotism test that requires saluting the flag and standing at attention during the singing of the National Anthem, but rather to pledge loyalty to America and the Constitution, this revered document, which is the Supreme law of the land. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the National Anthem that most of us learned from Elementary School is merely social custom and tradition but to some others, it is for them like a sacred ritual.

I wonder if the Whigs in the 13 Colonies would have saluted the Union Jack of the British Parliament and King George, or taken a knee or sat during a recital of the England's National Anthem, especially if they were treated unjustly? The answer can be found in reading the Declaration of Independence, but I guess such actions which birthed a new nation to break the yoke of tyranny, with an insatiable thirst for freedom and social equity “only” applies to some people but not to others. Peaceful and silent protest, as it would seem, is the highest, noble, and most honorable patriotism. As last point: president Trump spoke before a crowd of supporters in Huntsville, AL to support Senator Luther Strange where he worked up the crowd by saying that NFL owners should fire players, but the way he screamed, “You're fired” was reminiscent of Howard Dean's famous 'scream' at the 2004 Iowa caucus. Talk about Trump, it was really S-T-R-A-N-G-E, at that.

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 25, 2017
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Christian cake decorator refuses to make wedding cake for gay couple

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 20:35:00 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests every year, but less than seventy are ever approved for oral hearings or review. The petition filed on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd., on “Writ of Certiorari” should have been one of the many cases that the nation’s Highest Court should have passed on. For one thing, the legal argument is not valid and without merit because it seeks to indict the State government of using its coercive power to force someone into actions that violates their conscience right of “Free Speech” (Free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment). In the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefelt v Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion thusly: The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs", but the "identification and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any formula. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act", for "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Now, it is time for the historical backdrop to this legal appeal to the Supreme Court:

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips (“Plaintiff”), who is a Christian, refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple ( Charlie David and Craig Mullins) on the basis that to do so violated his religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the CCRC ruled that the owner (Phillips) violated the state’s public accommodations law which prohibits businesses open to the public from discrimination against their customers on the basis of religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The owner appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, which upheld the decision by the CCRC, and asserted: despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the “expected” conduct of Phillips business, and NOT an expression of “Free Speech” or the “free exercise of religion.”

NOTE: This religion exception is an old argument that has been soundly rejected by lower courts in the following:

Sweet Cakes by Melissa

Christian bakers who lost their store and were fined $135,000 for declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding brought their case before the Oregon Court of Appeals Thursday in an attempt to overturn the judgment. Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon, said they simply want the freedom to live by the tenets of their faith. “We just want the government to tolerate and accept differences of opinion, so we can continue to follow our faith,” Mrs. Klein said at a press conference following hearing. “We hope that, even if people have different beliefs from us, that they will show each other tolerance and that we can peacefully live together and still follow our faith. That’s all we want. “An administrative judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the couple guilty of discrimination for declining to bake a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer-Bowman and Laurel Bowman-Cryer in 2013. Cryer in 2013.The bakers were ordered to pay $135,000 for the mental and emotional damages they caused the lesbian couple. Attorneys argued Thursday that the government violated the Klein’s’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religious exercise and due process. “The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, which represents the Klein’s, said in a statement. “In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Klein’s’ rights to free speech and religious liberty.” It is illegal under Oregon law for businesses to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ingersoll v Arlene’s Flowers (Arlene Flowers lawsuit)

Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed were shocked and hurt when their longtime florist refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The couple, with the help of attorneys, sued Richland florist Barronelle Stutzman under Washington’s anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws. Attorneys for Stutzman argued Tuesday that a floral arrangement is a form of speech deserving of protection and that government cannot compel Stutzman to create an arrangement for a gay couple against her religious beliefs. State Attorney General Bob Ferguson urged the court to uphold state anti-discrimination laws and not to create an exception for religious beliefs. He noted that many people once held strong religious beliefs against interracial marriage, but the courts ultimately struck down those laws as discriminatory. Cathy Echelbarger, of Edmonds, said she believed the case was about freedom of religion. “The government shouldn’t be telling her who she should or shouldn’t be doing business with,” she said. Stutzman and her attorneys argue that the court’s ruling is unlawful government coercion and that the creative expression of floral arrangement deserves the same protection as free speech. “The government is coming in and telling me what to say, what to create, what to believe. That’s not America to me,” Stutzman said. During Tuesday’s hearing, several justices expressed skepticism for that argument, asking, “So anyone worried about their [creative artistic] expression may deny services to a customer?” asked Justice Steven Gonzales.

Mr. Phillips was a guest on ABC’s “The View” on Friday, June 30, 2017, where he explained his religious objection for refusing service to a same-sex couple. He believes that marriage is between a man and woman and a wedding ceremony is sacred and blessed by God, and that to be forced to prepare and adorn such a cake would violate his conscience and religious belief. I think the legal issue that the SCOTUS Justices need to decide is: Whether creative artistic business expressions are protected under the First Amendment “Free exercise of religion” Clause. A cursory reading of the Constitution seems to echo silence on how a business should operate, but the Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are “reserved” to the States respectively; or to the People. The licensing of any business is done by the State and has the sovereign right to regulate through its laws and statutes how such entities that are engaged in commerce to the public are to operate with respect to customers. If the Supreme Court should decide in Mr. Phillips favor, it would be a “slippery slope” and set legal precedent extending far beyond this particular case, leading not only to legal challenges by the state but other unexpected and unintended consequences.

It must also be mentioned that religious liberty doesn’t only just mean Christianity. Since Mr. Phillips would not decorate a wedding cake for non-traditional marriages, I suppose a Mormon plural marriage or a Wicca ceremony is out of the question. Not only that, to be consistent, a gay couple celebrating a wedding anniversary or a same-sex couple celebrating the birthday of a child they adopted probably would not get his business, either. Would Masterpiece Cakeshop provide a decorated cake for a Santeria wedding; what about a Hindu one? This complaint involves just one business owner, but what about others-florists, Olan Mills portrait studios, Hall mark greeting cards, wedding planners, Interior Decorators, catering services, etc. The Declaration of Independence to the Constitution uses such lofty words as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but how can this goal be achieved when religion is used as a “wall of discrimination” that separates groups of people. A person suffers ‘harm’ when they are denied the legitimate, reasonable, and lawful expectation from business goods and services. Besides all that, religious beliefs are fluid and changeable; there is no universally-agreed-upon Truth. Religious practices and teachings undergo constant reevaluation and evolution. The religion ‘exception’ can be/is used ‘arbitrarily’ in many cases to foster intolerance, bigotry, prejudice or a judgmental attitude. This confers on the objects of disaffection a second-class status by denial of such person’s liberty, social justice and the full entitlement of all rights as citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

June 29, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

We the People v Donald J. Trump

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:21:00 +0000

The Sixth Amendment says that the U.S. Constitution is the “law of the Land” and that all elected officials are bound by oath to obey it. This means that no one, not even the Chief Executive is above the law. As it pertains to president Trump, there are two legal issues that are under consideration:

1) Did the president commit an impeachable offense in violation of Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution?

2) Was the president’s actions an abuse of power as stipulated by 18 U.S. Code § 1505?

I believe it was Sen. Angus King of the Senate Intelligence Committee that affirmed the applicable legal standard when he mentioned to James Comey: “In a court case when you are weighing evidence, contemporaneous memos, statements to third parties are ‘probative’ in terms of validity of testimony.” It is with this basis in mind that the following timeline of events and sources are offered:

Washington Post:

December 29, 2016

Flynn, incoming national security adviser for Trump, phone with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, and discusses the sanctions and suggests the possibility of sanctions relief once Trump is president. The call is monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Jan 26, 2017

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, accompanied by an aide, goes to the White House and tells White House Counsel Donald McGahn that, contrary to Flynn’s claims to White House officials, sanctions had been discussed in the calls, based on the monitoring of the conversations by intelligence agencies. She also warns that Flynn is vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.

Jan 27, 2017

McGahn asks Yates to come to the White House again to discuss the matter further. Yates testified that he did not indicate whether he had discussed the Flynn situation with anyone else at the White House, but White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters “the president was immediately informed of the situation.” McGahn asked why the Justice Department would be concerned whether one White House official lied to another, she said. “Logic would tell you that you don’t want the national security adviser to be in a position where the Russians have leverage over him,” she said. McGahn also asks to see the underlying evidence. Yates says she would work with the FBI to assemble the material, and McGahn’s review is scheduled for Jan. 30.

NOTE: The White House lawyer though it was such an inconsequential matter and didn’t recognize the legal seriousness of Flynn’s contact with the Russians; not to mention lying about it?

Jan 30, 2017
Trump fires Yates, allegedly over an unrelated matter — her conclusion that Trump’s executive order barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries was “unlawful.” The executive order is later blocked by the courts.

NOTE: This firing is suspicious.

Feb 13, 2017
The Washington Post reports that the White House had known for weeks that Flynn had misled people about the nature of the Kislyak calls.

Feb 14, 2017

Comey’s version (from written congressional testimony, June 8): “On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President,” Comey said in his congressional testimony. “The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone….When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ … The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify… ‘He is a good guy and has been through a lot.’ He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ …I did not say I would ‘let this go.’” Comey said that given the setting and the fact that Trump asked to see him alone, he took the president’s words as a directive.

Comey also testified before the Committee that General Flynn, at that point in time was in legal jeopardy-there was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with Russian contacts and the contacts themselves.

NOTE: In the statement taken from James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee (memo page 5, par. 3), these 28 words reflect president Trump’s ‘intent’ because the phrase “let him go/let Flynn go” is repeated three times. Let’s see is there is further proof offered to determine if one has difficulty understanding what president Trump wants done. Donald Trump Jr. — the president's eldest son — seemed to confirm Comey's version of events in a Saturday, June 11, 2017, interview on Fox News as he tried to emphasize the fact that his father did not directly order Comey to stop investigating Flynn. “When he tells you to do something, guess what? There's no ambiguity in it, there's no, 'Hey, I'm hoping,'"

CNN:

May 9, 2017

Trump fires Comey, effective immediately. In his dismissal letter, Trump cites a recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote in an attached memo that Comey's handling of the investigation into Clinton's email server was to blame. CNN reports that federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election. CNN learned of the subpoenas hours before Comey's firing.

May 10, 2017

In a morning "tweetstorm," Trump says Democrats have wanted Comey gone for a while and are now faking outrage at his firing. "Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!" n a photo-op with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Trump says he fired Comey "because he wasn't doing a good job."

The same day, Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office, but the White House blocks US media from photographing the event. Russian state-sponsored media post photos of the meeting, angering a White House official. Deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Comey committed "basic atrocities" by going around the Justice Department chain of command and speaking out during the Clinton email investigation. She also says Trump had considered letting Comey go as early as Election Day.

NOTE: Let’s see if that last part is really true, shall we?

OCTOBER 31, 2016 – Trump holds a rally in Grand Rapids, MI

“You know that. It took a lot of guts. I really disagreed with him. I was not his fan,” Trump said of Comey. “I tell you what, what he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back. He's got to hang tough. A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing. What he did was the right thing.”

NOVEMBER 13, 2016 – Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Lesley Stahl

“I respect him a lot. I respect the FBI a lot,” Trump said.

During the interview, Stahl asked if Trump wanted Comey gone when he came into office, to which Trump replied that he wasn’t sure. He said despite what he perceived as “leaks” coming from the FBI, he wanted to speak with Comey before answering that kind of question.

APRIL 12, 2017 - Trump's interview with Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo

It's not too late [to ask Comey to step down], but, you know, I have confidence in him. We'll see what happens, you know, it's going to be interesting," Trump said.

This last part has to do with Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13. Atty. Gen. Sessions was asked about what former FBI Director James Comey said about meeting with president Trump alone. He said, “There is nothing wrong with the president having communication with the FBI director. What is problematic for any Department of Justice employee is to talk to any cabinet persons or White House officials about ongoing investigations that are not properly cleared through the top levels of the Department of Justice. I took it as a concern that he might be asked something that was improper, and I affirmed to him his willingness to say no or not go in an improper way, improper direction. I will say it this way.

We were there and I was standing there and without revealing any conversation that took place, what I recall is that I did depart and I believe everyone else did depart and Director Comey was sitting in front of the president's desk and they were talking. I believe it was the next day that he said something and expressed concern about being left alone with the president. That in itself is not problematic. He did not tell me at that time any details about anything that was said that was improper. I affirmed his concern that we should be following the proper guidelines of the Department of Justice and basically backed him up in his concerns. He should not carry on any conversation with the president or anyone else about an investigation in a way that was not proper.

NOTE: This is puzzling because if the Attorney General thought that president Trump might breach the proper policies between branches of government, why didn’t he insist on staying; and why wasn’t the White House counsel present? Maybe the president wanted some kind of “patronage” relationship after-all.

NOTE: I presume these calls were recorded or the conversation was overheard over the speakerphone by one of James Comey's staff. Not only that, but wasn't it unusual and outside the chain-of-command for the Executive branch of the White House to be speaking directly with the FBI Director, and not through Comey's boss, the Attorney General?

To sum it all up then:

President Trump fires acting Attorney General Sally Yates because of her investigation into Michael Flynn. President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey because of “not letting Flynn go” and also “not lifting the cloud” of the Russia investigation. Whether there is sufficient probable cause that president Trump acted illegally has to be weighed in the Court of public opinion, as well in the halls of Congress. The thing is though, would a ‘reasonable’ person not think that there is more than circumstantial evidence, rising to the level of “probable cause” that the president’s actions constitute abuse of power; amounting to Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 and Art. II, Sect. 4 (High Crimes and Misdemeanors. . .). Ironically, Senator Lindsey Graham probably said it best on Face the Nation, June 11, 2017: “What is so frustrating for Republicans like me is that Trump may be the first president in history to go down because you can’t stop inappropriately talking about an investigation that, if you were just quiet, would clear you.” Well, I guess president Trump can always “refudiate” (Sarah Palin) any testimony presented against him as ‘alternative facts’ “Fake News” and a political “Witch Hunt.” Oh, wait; he’s already used that one, but ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

June 20, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

All the president’s men (ver. 2.0)

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:06:00 +0000

There is an old saying that “Truth is stranger than fiction,” and when it comes to the unrelenting effort to put out the many fires issuing from the Trump White House, the American people are suffering from heat exhaustion; not to mention an over-exposure to the toxic fumes from lies and innuendo. There are elements for a new novel and political thriller from author James Patterson that combines a collage or trifecta derived from movies and series like: “The Manchurian Candidate;” “A Few Good Men;” and the “X-Files.” Taken in order- the Soviets (Russians) brainwash, compromise or influence a person to be an agent for the Kremlin, where the actions they undertake influences the outcome of an American presidential election (sound familiar??). Next, there is a situation in which a Marine General is hiding a secret, or not giving full disclosure regarding a criminal investigation into his possible complicity.

Mike Flynn was a Lieutenant General in the U.S. Army; though not the Marines, but he did not fully disclose information about his contact with Russian officials. The ‘X-Files’ has to do with government conspiracy and keeping the truth from the American people. However, the search for truth and to expose government malfeasance at the highest levels is pursued by ironically, FBI agents Dana Scully and Fox Mulder. Former FBI Director James Comey’s name sounds like Dana Scully, and also Special Prosecutor and former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s name sounds like Fox Mulder. There might not be a “Smoking Man” in this current situation of political intrigue, but the Trump administration has been blowing a lot of ‘smoke’ in the faces of the American citizens to obfuscate the truth by any means necessary.

President Trump said after James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, that he feels vindicated because Comey said for the first time in public that he was not under any current [counter-intelligence] investigation by the FBI. I wonder how the president feels now that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller says that he is now part of the Russia investigation. As a final thought- this is becoming eerily similar in some aspects to “Watergate” where there is evidence of presidential abuse of power. As with then there were tapes but as of now, there are only rumors of tapes. It was forty-three years ago during what is called “The Saturday Night Massacre” that associates of president Nixon broke into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in the Watergate office/residential complex in Washington, DC At the time, Congress was already looking into the break-in and investigating Nixon’s potential involvement and cover-up efforts. Operatives at the highest levels of the Russian government broke into the DNC database and electoral system to affect the outcome of an American presidential election and our Democratic process.

Not only that; but President Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. There are rumors circulating that have been unsubstantiated by president Trump, Deputy press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Press Secretary Sean Spicer that there is any intention the fire Mueller. Sanders went on to add that, “While the president has the right to, he has no intention to do so,” Lastly, there are so many leaks coming from the Trump administration that I doubt if the ‘Watergate’ plumbers could plug all of them.

#TrumpGate

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

June 15, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is America headed for another financial meltdown?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Thu, 25 May 2017 20:27:00 +0000

I just finished reading the book, “The Aftershock Investor” (2014) by Wildener and Seitzer, and it convinced me that America is headed for another financial crisis; one that will be more severe and extended over a longer period of time before showing any signs of a recovery than the event of 2008. What this country is experiencing now is the illusion of an economic recovery based on the Federal Reserve pumping massive amounts of dollars into the economy but sooner or later this bubble is going to burst. The authors indicate that since 2008 the money supply has grown from $800 billion dollars to more than $3 trillion (275% or at the rate of 34.375% annually since then). Not only that, but the reports published by the Federal Reserve show that government debt was $930 billion dollars in 1980, rising to $16.8 trillion dollars in 2013; that’s a whopping 1706% during the time period and 51.7% annually.

According to the White House Bureau of Economic Analysis, Wildener and Seitzer mention the total increase in GDP between 2008 and 2012 was $2.8 trillion dollars, while government spending for the same period was $4.7 trillion. Also, in that same report, GDP growth for 2013 was $315 billion dollars and government borrowing/debt was $750 billion dollars. This trend is unsustainable and sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost. Creating massive amounts of paper money faster than the economy is growing is the very definition of “inflation” as this devalues the dollar, resulting in higher costs for goods and services; not to mention that this will cause the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. I think the answer is to increase productivity in the manufacturing and services sectors to increase GDP. This is done by making America more business-friendly by changing or eliminating job-killing regulations and international trade deals that stifle corporate investments in domestic industries. Why should American companies use all of our talent and technological and innovative know-how to grow the GDP’s of other countries when they should be doing this here?

The federal government should consider letting the individual state legislatures, where some of the large multinational or Fortune 100/500 companies are located, decide or work out with these industries what the best environmental and worker protection policies for them; or let the citizens choose by ‘direct democracy’ activism through ballot referendums and initiatives. This might be a better solution than impose a levy on imports or tax corporate profits; which would not raise enough revenue anyway. Many people who think that the economy has recovered fail to take into account that in a ‘macro’ economy there is usually a “lag time” of several years between expansion of the money supply and when inflation occurs; although if one has been paying attention the cost of things are more than they were a few years ago. So, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives need to work in a bi-partisan or non-partisan way to enact legislation that will bring businesses back to America, not have the Federal Reserve keep filling up that paper money balloon because it can only expand so far until it finally bursts.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

May 23, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Should rape/love-making be compared to the slave/immigrant experience?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:00:00 +0000

Sometimes I read a newspaper article in the Opinion section, and while I might not always agree the writer’s viewpoint, it is rare that I feel so compelled to respond- this time, however, is one of those occasions demanding a swift call for clarity on my part. In the Tacoma News Tribune, Sunday March 12, 2017 edition, Section 6B, featured an editorial by syndicated Miami Herald syndicated columnist Leonard Pitt’s reaction to Dr. Ben Carson’s speech before his HUD staffers, in which he compared the experiences of African slaves brought to America as those of European immigrants. While it would be relatively easy to excoriate the former Neurosurgeon for having such a blatantly irresponsible lack of historical perspective, my attention was instead drawn away from that absurdity to one of an even greater magnitude of concern. Mr. Pitts attempt to deconstruct the ridiculousness of the HUD Secretary’s statements was undermined, in my opinion, by his own bizarre and strangely hypothetical narrative of a woman being raped.

After setting up the scene in rather explicit, graphic detail, sparing nothing to the imagination, he writes that the rapist “violently makes to her” –what?? Continuing on, “After all, the basic mechanics of love-making and rape are the same: sexual intercourse. Now, I get what Mr. Pitts was trying to do in this story, and I am sure that he doesn’t think this way on a personal level, but on a professional level I think he should have left this part out. Dr. Carson does a pretty good job of shooting himself in the foot just about every time he opens his mouth to say something in the public sphere; therefore he doesn’t need any outside help to make him look even more of an embarrassment. That being said, I think anytime you chose to use the example of ‘rape’ in public or private conversation, you have to be very, very careful. This reminds me of a former Texas gubernatorial candidate who was scheduled to speak at a campaign rally, and the typically expected sunny day turned out to be overcast with some gray clouds. However, this good ol’ boy politician was unaware while he was standing at the podium before he was to address the crowd, that his mic was inadvertently turned on, and he was recorded saying: The weather is like being raped; nothing you can do but sit back and take it.” Needless to say he lost by a landslide at the polls, and after that his future political career was toast.

Case in point: There is no moral equivalent or comparable social experience between rape/love-making and being a slave/immigrant. It seems that within the context of the article, Leonard Pitts needs to learn a few things, too.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 15, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Mental Health is a state of the body and not necessarily the mind

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:49:00 +0000

The solution to a problem is not always how much money is spent on treatment because if that were the case, then most of society’s ills would be cured by now. In The Tacoma Weekly, March 3, 2017 issue, the front-page storyline was “Bill Could Help with Mental Health, Addiction Funding.” The article mentioned about U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer’s effort in co-sponsoring a bill to help allocate money to fund communities to better provide mental health and drug and/or alcohol abuse services. Part of this legislation is to provide loans to hospitals and mental health agencies to provide psychiatric and addiction facilities and services. On page 5, Multicare and CHI Franciscan are working on a 40 million dollar plan to build a 120-bed facility at Allenmore Hospital that is scheduled sometime in 2018. All this sounds well and good as far as intention, but isn’t this approach just more of the same as in the example of ‘insanity’- doing the same thing but expecting a different result?

There is such an urgent need to do something about combatting the spiraling trend of mental impairment from substance abuse or a life crisis or traumatic event that leads to homelessness and a spike in property-related crimes; not to mention mental disability leading to anti-social behaviors and learning disabilities in children as well as adults. This in turn causes more law enforcement resources to be used to combat theft, vandalism, burglaries, juvenile delinquency /truancy (??). This repetitious cycle of more beds, psychiatric therapy/counseling and prescription drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Ritalin [ADHD], etc.) are somewhat effective because the side-effects may outweigh their benefits. However, back in 1987, Carl C. Pfeiffer published an interesting book by the title, “Nutrition and Mental Health” in which he establishes a causal link between nutritional deficiencies or imbalances and mental behavior. Dr. Pfeiffer conducted research on patients suffering from schizophrenia (“manic-depressive psychosis”) and found that this condition was due to blood levels of the brain chemical ‘histamines’ (derived from testing high “basophil” count in white blood cells).

Of course, not all people have the same metabolism and as is the case, high histamine levels are present in individuals with MDP and in others it is the exact opposite. Another contributing factor is low levels of Zinc, based on the presence of “pyrroles” found in urine, indicative of low serum immunoglobulin A. Some of the symptoms of this condition are mental retardation, amnesia, and having learning disabilities. It has also been found that drug addicts have high histamine levels. I think one of the first things to do is to reclassify mental illness as a disease of the body based upon the accumulation of toxic substances instead of based on a function of the mind or socio-cultural factors. This would require an “orthomolecular” approach based on knowledge of ‘integrative’ medicine that treats the whole person, and includes proper nutritional supplementation that heals and detoxifies the body at the cellular level. This is not a one-step cookie cutter solution, but rather part of a holistic approach that combines exercise, proper diet, healthy living, managing stress and making the right lifestyle choices for optimum health and happiness. The old saying, “If it ain’t broke then don’t try to fix it” doesn’t apply in this case because the mental health system has been broke for a long, long time-more bed space, higher Psychiatrists’ fees and keeping people hooked on prescription drugs for the rest of their lives is no real solution at all.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 11, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Some helpful tips about enrolling in Medicare

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:47:00 +0000

When a person approaches retirement age a flood of information suddenly and unexpectedly starts appearing in the mailbox, as well as unsolicited calls from insurance companies and independent brokers regarding the best Medicare plan on the market. This is even more relentless than AARP membership offers that end up in the mailbox among other junk mail flyers. Since I have already enrolled in Medicare I felt it might be useful to share my experience with those who already are enrolled in a Medicare plan or are about to at some point in the future. The first thing I recommend is to order the free booklet, “MEDICARE & YOU” from the Department of Health & Human Services Medicaid & Medicare Services at 1-800-633-4227. The booklet will show what services are covered under Medicare as well as some of the Medicare Advantage plans that are available in the state in which you live.

Now here is what you need to know: If you decide to enroll in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) you will have to pay a monthly premium under this plan in addition to having a Medicare Plan B premium deducted from your Social Security (p. 17). Now here is the real eye-opener: A Medicare Advantage Plan (HMO, PPO, etc.) is offered by “private companies” that are Medicare-approved by the U.S. Department of HHS and the administration of these services are set by government rules. If you elect a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) you get Medicare Part A (Hospital) and Part B (Doctor’s) coverage but it is “NOT ORIGINAL MEDICARE” as administered by the federal government. Additionally, it is not a supplemental plan because when you enroll in a MAP you are essentially dis-enrolled or “NOT” covered under ‘Original Medicare” and as such, you have to meet different deductibles, co-insurance/co-payment limits, and whatever else.

Perhaps the only real ‘Advantage’ in a MAP is that you have a yearly out-of-pocket maximum limit (p. 69), whereas under ‘Original Medicare’ there is no upper limit for annual out-of-pocket costs (p. 64). As with anything of value it is good to get as much information as possible before you choose the best plan for your needs. Contact MEDICARE and ask the representative to give you the cost of your annual deductible for Original Medicare part A (Hospital) and also for part B (Doctor) charges. The one thing that I found puzzling is that if I enroll in a MAP and pay premiums then why part B payments still are being deducted when I am no longer covered under Original Medicare, but when I asked this question all the person on the line did was continue to repeat that I have to have parts A and B to enroll in a MAP; which to me was not a real answer but rather the usual- you know what I mean.

Interestingly, there are no “Medigap” plans listed in the book (at least, for WA State) but quite a few Medicare Advantage plans, and Medigap is actually a supplemental plan because when you enroll in one you are still covered under Original Medicare, too. The thing is though; the premiums are usually quite a bit higher in some cases than either a MAP or Original Medicare but the annual deductibles are a lot lower in most (??) cases. When considering either plan outside Original Medicare try to find out if the annual out-of-pocket costs include deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance and/or other fees to determine if you are getting the most bang for your buck. This is your body and health needs and it doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist, having a representative or independent agent from one of these agencies contacting you, or attending a workshop to choose a plan; the good thing about all of this is you can always change your mind if you learn something else is better, and opt-out within the enrollment period. At the very worst, you can just wait another year and try another plan or remain in Original Medicare.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 1, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

The presidential choices: Bad temperment or Bad judgment?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert Randle) — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 21:05:00 +0000

In one more day the most vitriolic, nastiest and mean-spirited presidential election in modern history will come to a conclusion, and the winner will be president-elect of the United States; much to the relief of almost everyone in America. There are no adequate words to describe what the citizens have endured over these past months but bizarre, astonishing, unpredictable, exhausting and grueling are a few of the adjectives that can be used. This is a two-stage process where the candidate for president wins the popular vote and then sometime around December 8th, electors will meet in their state capitols and cast a vote for the president according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The political pundits, reporters, Talk Radio moderators and pollsters have inundated the public with minute-by-minute coverage but they often just focus on limited talking points which generate ratings and neglect other substantive considerations. I want to focus on some of the things that mainstream and conservative media might not have brought to the conversation.

Let’s begin with Donald Trump:

The biggest thing facing Donald Trump, if he becomes president, is about “temperament.” He has proven over and over again that he is thin-skinned, easily provoked and has made on more than one occasion reckless statements. Hillary Clinton was right when she warned Trump that “words matter.” And then there is still the matter of not disclosing his income tax, which is unprecedented for a presidential candidate this late in the game. Also, the TRUMP brand is at risk, which if he won the presidency, could be leveraged to advantage his business interests. There are already signs of some backlash because Ivanka Trump’s line of clothing and accessories carried in upscale stores like Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s and Nordstrom’s have caused customers to threaten to not buy from that line because of the negative association. The politicians who support Trump, especially if he loses may face challenges in their own congressional districts. Some evangelical preachers have put their reputations on the line, such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr and Mike Huckabee who have encouraged their faithful flocks to support this born-again Republican candidate.

Now, to shine the spotlight on Hillary Clinton:

The stakes could not be much higher for the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. There is a lot for Hillary to overcome, especially when it comes to transparency, ethics or trust, but perhaps the biggest issue, like a millstone around her neck is that she has “bad judgment.” With all of Hillary’s experience, knowledge and qualifications FBI Director James Comey concluded that her handling of emails was “extremely careless.” While this does not mean she is ‘grossly incompetent’ it should concern everyone that she could have acted this way unintentionally, but if, on the other hand, her handling of emails was done knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, then this should be of grave concern to every American citizen.

This is Hillary’s second attempt to secure the nation’s highest elected office but her hopes were dashed to the ground by a little-known, African-American male named Barack Obama; a U.S. Senator from Chicago, IL who was serving his second year in office. Imagine the impact of another loss on the Clinton legacy to be defeated by a brash billionaire and one-time supporter, who has insulted so many persons, even the Pope of Rome. If Hillary is defeated this will be the handwriting on the wall, the closing chapter of the Clinton name or brand in power politics in America as well as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. This will be the swan song of a political career spanning over twenty years on the national scene, the setting of the sun, among the fading glories of the past, finally being laid to rest among the forgotten memories of obsolescence, irrelevance, and obscurity.

The winners and losers:

Whether Donald Trump becomes president or not, Mike Pence certainly has to be a serious candidate for a future president bid among Republicans. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway could see her status rise with a Trump victory but a loss would be detrimental to her marketability. She managed Ted Cruz’s campaign and he didn’t make the cut, and if this turns out badly, she will be associated with losers. RNC Riece Priebus has supported Trump and continued to funnel resources into the Trump campaign instead of diverting them toward congressional races when a few Republican candidates are vulnerable. If Trump loss his decision might be questioned by some of the establishment Republicans, especially if their members lose seats in Congress.

And then there are people like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie who will have egg on their face from a Trump loss. In the Clinton camp, endorsements by celebrities like Beyonce and Jay-Z, Katy Perry, Adele or LeBron James really don’t matter all that much, but is does, or it should to Barack and Michelle Obama The president and First Lady have been campaigning tirelessly on Hillary’s behalf in these past few weeks, and in fact, without their impassioned speeches at the DNC several months ago, this presidential race would be a lot different today than it is now. And then there is poor Bernie Sanders, and I wonder how he really feels because he had her on the ropes during the primaries, but let her off by not wanting to hear any more about “those damn emails.” He also pressed her hard or taking exorbitant speaking fees from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and yet promising, if she were elected president, to rein in their behavior.

I almost forgot about former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who already rigged the game in favor of Hillary Clinton; her political future will be toast after all this is over. Bernie Sanders supporters must be having mixed emotions and having been shut down at the Convention, will those who are electors in their respective states vote for Hillary Clinton? A person in WA State has already said he will not even if Hillary wins the electoral votes in this Blue State. And then there is FBI Director James Comey, whom I am sure already has his letter of resignation already written because he has no future at the agency or anywhere else in law enforcement; except maybe as a security guard. With his level of popularity at this point, he probably couldn’t even get a job as a dog catcher. The vacant seat in the Supreme Court is an issue that has caused some concern for voters, especially when it comes to the president. What should concern everyone is what political party controls the Senate because the president “only” makes appointments to the nation’s highest Court but the Senate has to “confirm” or approve the candidate. This is done through hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate majority comprises the committee members and is the tiebreaker on judicial appointments.

As a last point, if Donald Trump is elected president the smart thing to do is set the tone for conciliation, healing and a peaceful transfer of power, and Hillary Clinton should concede the election and help facilitate a more orderly transition along with President Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton becomes president she should try to bring people together and reassure everyone that she has a lot of work to do to gain the American people’s trust and respect, and that she want to serve everyone to the best of her ability; never taking their vote for granted or her place in history. Hillary should try to build a coalition of Moderate Republicans to be part of her Cabinet and a president Trump should behave more seriously as it pertains to governance, and as a smart thing start listening more to his advisors instead of going off script. Just like Hillary Clinton, he should try to build a coalition of some Moderate or Progressive Democrats to be part of his administration. Although it is still early, the Democrats need to be looking for the next presidential candidate that is well-known and has some national exposure because the Republicans are ahead of them on that one; it seems, possibly with Cruz or Rubio wanting to give it another shot. So, this election will answer one question: Do we, as American citizens live in a country that live in a country where the glass is half full (“we can be stronger together”), or do we live in one that seems half empty (“to make America great again”)? The answer will come sometime late Tuesday night.

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com