Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller obstructing justice?

June 22, 2017

American prosecutors often treat the concept of obstruction of justice as if the concept only meant efforts to prevent them from successfully prosecuting a case.  That concept of obstruction might be acceptable in a country like  Nazi  Germany or the Soviet Union, but it is not acceptable in the United States of America.  The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights to American citizens accused of illegal actions.

A prosecutor who uses illegally obtained information in an investigation is guilty of obstruction of justice.   The Constitution guarantees those accused of crimes the right to confront their accusers in court because the British government had allowed convictions based on anonymous claims that might have been fabrications. Government agencies wanting to obtain information by electronic eavesdropping must first obtain approval by a judge.      Eavesdropping information obtained without court approval may be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and thus unusable by the prosecution.  The courts may prevent prosecution of individuals whose possible involvement in an activity is learned from “fruit of the poisonous tree”

How Could Hillary Be so Stupid?

September 28, 2016

I didn’t really think too much about how Hillary Clinton was dressed for the debate until a couple of hours ago.  Like most bachelors I don’t think much about the significance of  women’s clothing unless it’s kind of revealing.

I thought Hillary’s old lady type pantsuit looked vaguely inappropriate,  but didn’t recognize that red is not a good color for the wife of a sexual  predator to wear to what is essentially a job interview.   Red is a color long associated with prostitution dating back at least to the fall of Jericho when the prostitute Rahab hung a red cord on her house to let the Israelis know not to harm her or her family.    Areas where prostitutes are sometimes called “red light districts”  because railroad workers would leave their red lanterns outside while taking a break.

Many women, especially those of Hillary’s age,  seem to use the type of pantsuit Hillary wore like men use a t-shirt and jeans. I sometimes see women wearing such attire at Walmart.   I call her a attire a “pantsuit” because that is how it was described by one of the women helping with the broadcast    My first thought when I saw it was “why was Hillary wearing pajamas?” At the very least it looked like “comfort clothing” rather than something that indicated the person wearing it was serious about wanting a job.

Her clothing may be one reason I got the impression she was just there to have fun.  The happy expression she showed when she got recite one of her favorite catch phrases was almost childlike.  I previously published a post wondering if Hillary had Alzheimer’s.  This type of inappropriate behavior would be consistent with that hypothesis.

Is Hillary Taking “Happy Pills”?

September 27, 2016

The biggest difference  between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate  is that Trump took the debate seriously and Clinton was on a lark.  I vaguely remember her having an occasional serious expression on her face,  but my primary impression was of someone having a fun time at a party.  I have tried to convince myself that  she was overjoyed at being able to repeat one of her favorite cliches,  but at times it seemed like she was almost about  to giggle

I’m not a party animal, so the closest thing I have to observing someone who is “having a good time” is watching characters on television.  If I saw a tv character behaving like Hillary it would be because she was high on something.

Reactionary Justices Resurrect Plessy v. Ferguson Attitude

July 28, 2016

On June 27, in the worst ruling since Plessy v. Ferguson five white Supreme Court Justices told the State of Texas it had to ignore the 14th Amendment requirement to provide “equal protection of the laws”.

The ruling was even worse than Plessy. Plessy merely allowed states to enact Jim Crow segregation laws. Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt requires the state of Texas to allow continued operation of Jane Crow health facilities. A Jane Crow facility provides health care to black women but doesn’t have to meet the same high standards as facilities that treat white men.

Abortion surgery involves the removal of a significant sized biomass from deep inside a woman’s body much like cancer surgery does. The Texas law requires facilities performing abortion surgery on women to meet standards for surgical facilities that treat white men. Women occasionally die from carelessly performed abortion surgery including Tanya Reaves who bled to death after an abortion at an unlicensed Jane Crow facility in Chicago or Cree Erwin who recently died in Battle Creek, Michigan, after an abortion at an as yet unidentified facility.

Justice Breyer’s reasoning is consistent with the type of reasoning used by justices in the late 19th Century. He falsely claims that the law places a burden on those seeking abortions. The law doesn’t restrict patients from seeking abortions. The law merely forces those organizations that want to get money from performing abortions to spend enough money to maximize patient safety. The law requires abortion facilities to function like 21st Century medical facilities instead of mid-20th Century abortion mills. The law doesn’t restrict anyone’s “right” to an abortion. The law merely forces organizations performing abortions to spend more money on patient safety even if that reduces the amount of money available for the salaries of doctors and patients.

Breyer’s reasoning is comparable to late 19th Century Court rulings that prevented states from protecting workers from predatory employers. The Court claimed that such laws interfered with workers’ freedom of contract.

The justices who agreed with Breyer are similar to the justices who allowed Jim Crow segregation laws to remain in effect for 60 years. The justices during the Jim Crow era simply ignored the fact that the facilities provided for blacks were inferior. I don’t know whether they intended to be racists, but for all practical purposes they were. I don’t know if the justices who overturned the Texas law which would have eliminated substandard Jane Crow facilities intend to be racists, but they are.

Wolves in Women’s Clothing

June 1, 2016

A recent “Charlotte Observer” editorial repeats  common ignorance about efforts to protect the sexual privacy of women.    “Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”

The “Observer’s” editorial board apparently views the facts of life as they might be resented on  the “Brady Bunch” instead of on a cop show.   A woman has as much a right to be distressed if a male stranger exposes his genitals to her as a black man would if a white man showed him a hangman’s noose.

We human males are sexual predators by our animal nature.  Most of us learn when we are young that females have the right to decide if they want a physical relationship.  A man cannot knock a woman in the head with a club and drag her into his cave.  If he wants a physical relationship with a woman he must woo her with words, candy, flowers, etc.. Or, he can purchase a temporary relationship with a member of the world’s “oldest profession”.

Unfortunately, some men never learn this.   Like wolves they think any female is a potential sexual conquest.   These animals use their “junk” [to borrow David Letterman’s term] as a sexual assault weapon much like  others use a knife or a gun.  Doctors can sometimes  heal the physical scars caused by a knife or gun, but the psychological scars caused by a sexual assault can last a lifetime.    A man who shows his junk to a woman who hasn’t agreed to a physical relationship is threatening her well being  just like someone who threatens her with a knife or gun.

Women  cannot read men’s minds.  A woman in a restroom has no way of knowing in  advance if a man dressed as a woman is a harmless transsexual or a vicious wolf in women’s clothing.

Contrary to the opinion   to the opinion of the “Observer” editorial, differences in skin color are not the same as sexual differences.   A white person cannot get black skin by touching a black person, but a man can force his DNA into a woman and possibly get her  pregnant.

Do Heterosexuals Have Any Rights?

May 22, 2016

The current assault on women’s right to privacy in public restrooms implies that only those born with Gender Identity Disorder have any personal rights. GIDites believe that people with male anatomies who are dressed as women should be able to use restrooms designated for people with female anatomies. Women are justifiably concerned that sexual predators can take advantage of this situation and dress as women to gain access to women’s restrooms. Depriving women of their right to sexual privacy to accommodate men with a mental abnormality makes women second class citizens.

The GIDites claim to be harmless, but are actually Trojan horses who are creating opportunities for sexual predators who wish to deprive women of their sexual privacy.

Psychologists first used the term “Gender Identity Disorder” to describe persons who believed they had a brain of one sex trapped in the body of the other (transsexuals). Recent research using functional
MRI’s indicates that transsexuals really do have a brain of one sex in the body of the other sex. This research indicates that those who consider themselves “homosexuals” have this same birth defect but don’t recognize their condition. “Transvestites” are males who like to dress as females. It’s unclear if this desire involves a brain defect. I’m not aware of a term for females who like to dress as males.

GIDites claim that transsexuals and transvestites might be attacked if they used a men’s restroom while dressed as women. GIDites seem incapable of understanding that sexual predators occasionally dress as women and enter women’s restrooms in search of prey. If GIDites can enter women’s restrooms dressed as women then so can sexual predators. Doctors can use an MRI to determine if a person is a transsexual, but there is no test to determine if someone is a transvestite. Some sexual predators have taken advantage of this situation to gain access to potential victims.

GIDites reject a compromise that would provide the option of individual user restrooms for men dressed as women who don’t want to use a men’s restroom. Single user, or family, restrooms would help solve other problems. Parents are sometimes concerned about having a child of the opposite sex use a public restroom because they cannot be sure who will be in there.

A single user restroom would provide a safe place for a child to go. Public schools should switch to single user restrooms for all students. A poll indicates 43% of students fear harassment in restrooms.

Some adults might welcome the possibility of using a “private” restroom. For example, some have medical conditions that require them to use diapers or similar products. The women’s restrooms I used to clean had small trash receptacles for feminine hygiene products but I don’t know if all women’s restrooms have them. Men’s restrooms generally don’t have them so there is the potential for embarrassment when disposing of such products. The availability of single user restrooms would allow government to prohibit sexual predators, particularly those who prey on children, from using communal restrooms.

Government could eliminate the problem for transsexuals by having Obamacare cover sex change operations. Being born with a brain of one sex and the body of the other is a birth defect and surgery to put the body on the same sexual page as the brain is corrective surgery.

There can be no justification for increasing the risk of rape so that some men can dress up as women. Alternatives are available so such men can access a restroom. The potential cost to rape victims is too great to provide such men access to the same restrooms as women.

Rape can be an extremely traumatic event for women 31% of rape survivors have problems with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is sometimes a problem for men who have been in extreme military combat. 13% of rape survivors attempt suicide and many turn to drugs or alcohol to escape the memory. 26.6% of women with bulimia nervosa reported they had been raped.

Those who want men dressed as women to have access to women’s restrooms obviously have no respect for a woman’s right to sexual privacy or safety. Congress should impeach any federal official who attempts to deprive women of their right to sexual privacy and increase the risk of sexual assault.

Hillary Clinton Acts Guilty in Ambassador Stevens Death

April 26, 2016

There is no question that American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. The question I have been dealing with in two previous posts is whether or not Stevens was placed in Benghazi so he would be killed much like Israel’s King David ordered his general to have Uriah the Hittite assigned to a place in a battle where his death was virtually certain.

I don’t expect to prove who was responsible if Americans assigned Stevens to Benghazi to be killed. Such proof might require the investigative skills of a real life Sherlock Holmes.

Ian Fleming once observed: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Prior to the 2008 presidential primaries two known homosexuals who were acquainted with Barack Obama died violent deaths. In November, 2011, Larry Sinclair who wrote a book claiming to have had an affair with Obama, was killed by a hit and run driver. Chris Stevens who was murdered by terrorists at Benghazi was also a known homosexual.

[Correction: Larry Sinclair is alive. A rumor about his death was posted on the Free Republic possibly as part of a pattern of intimidation reported by Kevin Dujan who had scheduled a radio interview with Larry Sinclair to discuss Sinclair’s allegations about Obama being homosexual and using drugs.]

Stevens wouldn’t be the first high American official whose assassination was approved by someone in the United States government. Military historian Robert Wilcox in his book “Target Patton” claims that in December, 1945, OSS head “Wild Bill” Donovan ordered OSS marksman Douglas Bazata to kill Gen. George Patton because Patton was threatening to expose what Patton considered allied collusion with the Soviets that cost American lives. The World War II era OSS was the predecessor of the CIA.

Some believe Ambassador Stevens might have been killed because he was about to blow the whistle on a questionable “gun running” scheme to send old Libyan government weapons to Syrian “Contras” [or whatever Syrian rebels are called] or some other group. A problem with this explanation is that an attack on Stevens in Benghazi would draw attention to whatever the CIA was doing there. The fact the CIA facility was located so close to the consulate could indicate that the “intelligence” officials involved weren’t very intelligent. If the CIA had an operation going in Libya, locating it in the same city as a diplomatic facility would severely hamper keeping the operation secret. The attack on the CIA compound indicates the terrorists suspected what the CIA was up to. Their abuse of Stevens’ body indicates they knew he was homosexual.

Those who don’t understand government would likely say if the government wanted Stevens dead, President Barack Obama would have ordered the killing. However, unless the situation was similar to the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Obama probably wasn’t involved. Archbishop Thomas Becket was killed in 1170 by followers of King Henry II of England who believed the King wanted him killed. President Harry Truman probably did not know about the killing of General Patton.

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been responsible, but I doubt she’s intelligent enough to come up with such a plot. It would be more likely that she went along with a plan developed. by someone else. Her behavior before and after the incident implies she is guilty of something. Her use of a private email service implies she was doing something improper, if not illegal. Her attempt to avoid responsibility for the incident by inventing a easily disproved story about a riot caused by an anti-Muslim video implies she was covering up something, particularly considering that she came up with the story so soon after the incident.

Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed terrorists to monitor her email. If so they would have known the United States wouldn’t protect its diplomats in Benghazi. They might have also learned Stevens was homosexual which could have provided an added incentive to want to kill him.

If the murder of Stevens was part of a pattern that included the murders of Obama’s homosexual acquaintances, the person in charge was probably someone associated with Obama’s financial backers. They might have assigned someone to “protect their investment” by eliminating those who could pose a threat to Obama’s election chances by raising the homosexual issue.

Before I started this series I thought it was more likely that Stevens’ death was the result of incompetence. Now, I think it is more likely someone wanted him to be killed. I believe the test Sen. Saw Erwin used for President Richard Nixon and Watergate applies to Secretary of State Clinton and Benghazi. If she knew Stevens was likely to be killed she is a crook. If she didn’t she is incompetent.

Were Benghazi Deaths Result of Incompetence or Murder One?

April 17, 2016

After I published the previous post suggesting the Benghazi massacre demonstrated Hillary Clinton’s incompetence I received an email asking about the possibility that Clinton or someone intended for Ambassador Chris Stevens or another American to be murdered. I’m still inclined to believe the best explanation is incompetence, but I recognize the incident could have involved premeditated murder.

The death resembles an ancient murder from Israeli history. King David of Israel had gotten Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers named Uriah the Hittite, pregnant. When an attempt to cover up the situation failed, David sent orders for Uriah to be placed in the hottest part of the battle and have the army pull back so he would be killed. David then married Bathsheba so that most people would think her baby was the result of the marriage. Ambassador Stevens was also placed in a situation in which death was virtually certain.

A potential problem with this scenario is that Clinton had no apparent motive for killing Stevens. However, President Barack Obama could have had a motive if claims about his and Stevens personal lives are accurate. I’m not sure whether or not the claims are true, but believe that those who read this blog deserve the opportunity to make up their own minds.

There are claims that both Barack Obama and Chris Stevens. The claim that Stevens was homosexual seems to be more accepted than claims that Obama is even though the claims that he is homosexual have been made by those who describe themselves homosexuals. Larry Sinclair wrote a tell all book claiming to have had an affair with Obama. Homosexual blogger Kevin Dujan claims that Obama is homosexual.

The mother of Trinity Church choir director Donald Young believes his murder was to protect Obama from Young claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with Obama. There also has been a claim that Trinity Church had a program to help homosexual men avoid exposure. The killing of accuser Larry Sinclair by a hit and run driver is a disturbing coincidence that could support a claim that Chris Stevens was sent to Benghazi to die.

I’m a commentator rather than an investigative reporter. The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens certainly needs further investigation. I still believe the Benghazi incident indicates Hillary Clinton is incompetent, possibly in more ways than one. A competent politician certainly wouldn’t have gotten involved in a situation in which she could be accused of murder.

Conservative organizations have been claiming that Obama is blocking an indictment of Clinton for her violation of security regulations by using a private email service. Perhaps Obama is worried she might expose his involvement in the death of Stevens.

Donald Trump’s Abortion Answer Wasn’t Wrong, the Question Was

April 7, 2016

Donald Trump was correct when he said a woman who had an outlawed abortion would likely be punished. However, the most likely way of ending abortions would be through regulation of those providing medical treatment. Chris Matthews question implied that abortion would become a criminal offense. In that case the woman as a participant in the “crime” would be subject to prosecution probably as an accessory, an accomplice or a “co-conspirator”. The courts might not allow prosecution unless the woman was potentially subject to prosecution. In such a legal environment prosecutors might use the offering of immunity from prosecution to abortion recipients in exchange for testimony against the abortion provider.

In American medicine medical procedures that can pose a treat to health generally have to be approved by government. The most likely way to prohibit abortions would be through prohibiting specific medical procedures. This approach at the federal level wouldn’t necessarily require congressional action because the executive branch has authority to prohibit medical procedures.

The deaths associated with the most popular form of abortion in which the doctor basically pokes around in the woman to pull out the baby, sometimes in pieces, could justify prohibiting the procedures on the grounds that it poses too significant a threat to the woman’s health. The procedure sometimes causes fatal bleeding because the doctor cannot tell if he has caused bleeding. There is an alternative procedure available for late term pregnancies which poses less of a threat. Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding. Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy would have the benefit of the child being removed alive. This approach to ending a late term pregnancy should give both sides what they want. The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy and the child would be born alive.

Teddy, Truman and Trump

April 4, 2016

I’ve thought for some time that America might need a president like Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman.  They were strong larger than life leaders who played a major role in making the United States a strong world power.   Donald Trump is the only current candidate who comes close to the personality of those two.

Teddy Roosevelt inherited the presidency after the assassination of President William McKinley.   The United States had won a war with Spain, but European powers who had designs on Latin American countries that owed money to them didn’t regard the United States as a major power.  Roosevelt told them to stay out and he would deal with Latin American debtor nations.  Latin American nations complained about Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, but his actions prevented European nations from dividing up Latin America the way they were dividing other parts of the world.  Roosevelt’s heavy handed approach to Latin America also produced a canal through Panama.

Roosevelt negotiated an end to a war between Japan and Russia and earned a Nobel Peace Prize.  He ended  a west European conflict over control of  Morocco that might have become a major war.

Roosevelt pushed Congress to give the United States one of the world’s largest navies.

Harry Truman inherited the presidency upon the  death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as World War II was ending.   He faced the task of rebuilding a world devastated by years of Depression and war.  He set up the Marshall Plan to help west European countries rebuild their economies so that the communist political political groups couldn’t use the situation to gain control of those countries.  He helped the Japanese switch from being a military power to a nation focused on economic goals.  Truman helped establish the United Nations and a system of regional treaties as he made the United States the principle super power.  He kept the country from slipping back into a Depression.

Teddy Roosevelt was the original Bull Moose.  He was out spoken and belligerent with strong opinions.   In 1912, he was so upset with his successor that he ran against him on the “Bull Moose” party ticket.

Harry Truman wasn’t a tall man but he would stand up to anyone from Kansas City political strong man Boss Pendergast  to the leader of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin.  When one of the nation’s greatest generals, Douglas MacArthur challenged Truman’s decision on how to handle the  Korean War, Truman didn’t hesitate to say “you’re fired.”  Critics sometimes complained about  his crude language.

Donald Trump is clearly the only “Bull Moose” in the race.  He shares Harry Truman’s pen chant for using language that some consider crude.  Donald Trump is  a real larger than life person like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman were.  To borrow an old Flip Wilson tag line “what you see is what you get”.   He tells voters what he thinks rather than sticking to a  prepared script like most of the phonies who run for office.   Like Roosevelt and Truman he won’t let special interests push him around.

It isn’t necessary for presidents to enter office with specific plans for handling all problems.  We need a president who knows how to select qualified subordinates.  Richard Nixon was one of the 20th Century’s most intelligent presidents, but he was forced to resign because he chose the wrong people to assist him in the White House.   The War on Terror is going badly in part because President Barack Obama chose an inept Secretary of State named Hillary Clinton. Trump’s business success demonstrates he knows how to make good decisions.    The United States is facing a difficult war because of poor presidential decisions.  We need a strong leader who will take charge and make the nation great the way Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and  Harry Truman did.