Russia Didn't "Hack" Election

Thoughts on the fake news claim that Russia "meddled" in or "hacked"  the presidential election.  

Those who claim that Russia "meddled" in the recent presidential election have an even lower opinion of  President Barack Obama than the Republicans who call him the worst president in American history..  Countries can only "meddle" in countries that are weaker than they are, including countries that are weak because of  weak or inept leaders.    For example, President Barack Obama frequently meddled in middle eastern countries.   So far those alleging Russian meddling have not provided evidence that Russia tried to meddle by  influencing  election officials or providing financial assistance to candidates.   Spying on government officials or would be government officials is normal governmental action that governments do year round so they can be prepared for actions that might adversely impact them.   Attempting to influence public opinion in other countries is also normal action that is done year round and is not "meddling".   Governments are likely to try to discredit opinion makers who portray their country, or its leaders,  in a negative light  to prevent the development of sentiment for war or other adverse actions against  their country..     

The media are misrepresenting the hacking issue. Russia, China, Israel and North Korea and possibly others along with the NSA probably did hack into insecure email systems, but that does not mean they altered election results as media stories falsely imply. Foreign nations have often made significant efforts to influence American public opinion since WWI, but there is nothing illegal about that. Seeking to influence public opinion isn't "hacking" What would be improper would be if CIA employees are deliberately misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to overturn the election of Donald Trump. Such actions would subject individuals to impeachment and would indicate Congress should turn the agency's functions over to other departments


If Russians helped us learn Hillary's dirty secrets we should thank them just like many Americans thanked Daniel Ellsberg for revealing the Pentagon's secrets about Vietnam   During the Cold War the United States operated radio stations that broadcast news to communist countries that their governments didn't want them to know.    

Why don't you media children grow up?    If the Democrats, or Republicans, used insecure communications foreign governments would have spied on them.  Russia, Israel, China and North Korea would  certainly have led any "hacking", but others might also have participated.  Governments have to spy on each other, and on political candidates, so they can prepare for actions that might negatively impact them.   If the  Russians informed us of  Hillary's secrets the way Daniel Ellsberg did the Pentagon's secrets we should thank them rather than complain.    Foreign governments have been making significant efforts to affect voters' opinions since at least WWI so any Russian effort to affect the 2016 election wouldn't  be anything new. 

Democrats need to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate.   Party leaders had discouraged people from running against her for the nomination   because they knew she was a lousy candidate.   

Black Man Trying to Idenfity Father

There is a young black man who is attempting to learn for sure who his father is, but the man he has long believed to be his father continues to ignore him.  He is attempting to obtain the man's DNA so he can find out for sure.   He has gone so far as to ask the President of the United States, Barack Obama, for help because the father is a  politician  President Obama is acquainted with.   The father claims to favor racial equality on the political level, but apparently not at the personal level.

The alleged father wouldn't be the first white 20th Century politician to have fathered a black child.  Former Sen. Strom Thurmond  fathered a black child, but Thurmond accepted the responsibility of being a father.  Thurmond kept in touch with his daughter and financed her college education.   Although Thurmond had fought racial integration at the political level, he had no trouble having a personal relationship with a black daughter.

And now for what commentator Paul Harvey would have called the "Rest of the Story".   The young man's name is Danney Lee Williams-Clinton and the man he believes to be his father is Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States.

The Real Deplorables

The Media Sheep Morons are the real deplorables.  They blindly follow Hillary Clinton like sheep following a Judas Goat into the slaughter house.   The MSM Deplorables think Hillary is an empress wearing a beautiful gown. 

Many of today's journalists aren't fit to clean the soles of Walter Cronkite's shoes.   If the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens had occurred on Cronkite's watch he wouldn't have rested until he found out why Secretary of State Clinton left the Ambassador  to die in Benghazi on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.  The British withdrew their diplomats from Benghazi after a terrorist attack on the British
Ambassador's motorcade.  Why didn't the United States?  American law enforcement agencies recognized terrorist activity could occur on or near the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.  Why didn't Secretary of State Clinton?

Hillary Clinton's inability to remember information about this major event should raise a red flag. Maybe she let him die because she forgot he was in danger.  Her stated inability to remember a major event could indicate Alzheimer's.   What if Hillary happened  to forget  important information during a crisis?

Most of us are suspicious of people who become rich while working for government like the Clintons have done.   How do the Media Sheep Morons explain how the Clintons gained a fortune without winning the lottery?   How do they explain Secretary Clinton 's official meetings with her campaign contributors?

As a young woman Hillary Clinton got a job with a Senate Committee investigating dirty tricks in the 1972 presidential campaign.  Apparently she decided such dirty tricks were such a good idea she used some of them to get the presidential nomination.    The Washington Post  worked hard to expose President Nixon's dirty tricks.   If Hillary gets away with using dirty tricks to become president, she may  make President Richard Nixon look honest when she runs for re-election.

The Media Sheep Morons see Hillary as an empress wearing a beautiful gown.  Millions of Americans see her as the Wicked Witch of the East and the Media Sheep Morons as her flying monkeys.

According to Noah Webster “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Tim Kaine Debates Like a Girl

I thought Hillary Clinton was one of the worst debate participants until I watched her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine.   I would compare both of them unfavorably to President George H.W. Bush's Vice President Dan Quayle,  but most people wouldn't know what I was talking about and I'm not ambitious enough to try to find a transcript to refresh my memory.

I admit I'm basing my comparison discussion of how women argue on how television portrays arguments then on a scientific study of the subject.    One of the most annoying practices used in arguments by female tv characters is bringing up some statement the man has made  in the past and making it the center of discussion.  This practice may serve some purpose in a personal conflict, but is often irrelevant in a discussion of political issues.

The impression I got about both candidates, with Kaine being the worst, is that they were trying to change the subject because they didn't understand the issues they were discussing.   Kaine reminded me of a small child who keeps interrupting a discussion because he's not getting the attention he wants.   His face reminded me of one of those little yappy dogs who should be muzzled.

If I had been considering voting for Hillary I would have changed my mind because I'm repelled by the thought of Tim Kaine being a heart beat from the presidency.  I wonder if it's too late "to throw him under the bus" like George McGovern did to Thomas Eagleton.    If Kaine is an example of the type of people Clinton plans to appoint to federal office we will be in big trouble if she is elected.

I'm not opposed to a woman president.  I wish I had had an opportunity to vote for Shirley Chisholm or Elizabeth Dole, but neither could get her party's nomination.  Condoleezza Rice was my  preferred choice to succeed President George W. Bush. I would likely have voted for Kathleen Sebelius if she had run this year or the two previous elections.

Women who support Clinton need to consider that if she fails badly [as is likely considering her record as Secretary of State] it may be 50 year before another woman will have a chance to even be nominated.   Jackie Robinson was able to bring about the integration of professional baseball because he was a great player.  If he had been  poor player other teams would probably have not signed black players

I Don't Care If Trump Paid Income Tax

I'm a retiree getting by on Social Security and a state pension, but I don't care if Donald Trump didn't send a payment when he filed his federal income tax.   I didn't send in a federal income tax payment either.  I didn't have enough potentially taxable income to owe an income tax, but that doesn't mean none of my income went to the Internal Revenue Service.   

Simple minded Hillary Clinton has the same problem understanding our tax system that Mitt Romney demonstrated four years ago.   They both ignore the indirect or hidden taxes we all pay regardless of income.  They don't understand what the late commentator Paul Harvey  would call the rest of the story.

The income tax isn't the only federal tax. The federal government also taxes services like land line telephones and products like gasoline. 

Trump may not have paid taxes on his personal income, but money he paid to his employees paid their income tax.    The people he purchased goods and services from paid income taxes.  It's more important for Trump to pass along his money to employees and various vendors so they can pay taxes then to pay income taxes himself.

Hillary Debates Like a Girl

During the first presidential debate I initially wondered about Hillary Clinton's debating style which didn't seem very presidential.   She seemed to prefer personal attacks unrelated to presidential matters over a discussion about policy matters.   After thinking about the  debate for a few days I realized that her behavior reminded me of the way women are portrayed as arguing on television shows.  

Clinton didn't take the debate seriously.   Her red pant suit and perky demeanor are more appropriate for a party than a serious debate of the issues.

Donald Trump remained serious during the debate, but Clinton grinned whenever she found an opportunity to use one of her favorite catch phrases or made a personal attack on Trump.  As I was writing this statement I realized what some of her facial expressions remind me of child who looks for approval when she thinks she has said  something special.

Clinton's "perkiness" is disturbing because she appears perky even when discussing serious subjects as if she doesn't really understand the seriousness of the situation.  

I'm a week older than Bill Clinton.  Those in our age group are alert to indications that others are possibly deteriorating mentally.  Hillary at times reminds me of those little old lady characters who are out of touch with reality.

How Could Hillary Be so Stupid?

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"?

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.

How Severe Is Hillary's Health Problem?

The request from New York Times technology columnist Farhad Manjoo that Google censor searches for information about Hillary Clinton's health strongly implies  that Manjoo knows she suffers from some type of severe health problem.   So does the Huffington Post's banning of David Seaman because of an article about Clinton's health. 

There would be no reason to censor health related searches about Clinton if her problem is something like Parkinson's as rumors attributed to Secret Service agents suggest.   Rev. Billy Graham has Parkinson's as did Pope John Paul II and various American political leaders and other celebrities.  Medication allows people with Parkinson's to continue to function.

There would be no reason to censor health searches if Clinton has heart trouble.  President Dwight Eisenhower was reelected in 1956 even though he had had a heart attack in 1955.

Censorship would make sense if Hillary is in the early stages of Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia.  Alzheimer's can be difficult to diagnose because the individual symptoms can also occur normally.   Hillary's desire to spend a large sum on Alzheimer's research could be for personal reasons.

For example,  Alzheimer's could have played a role in some of Hillary's controversies.  Some of her actions such as the ones listed below,  are consistent with symptoms of Alheimer's.

Poor judgement:  Her decision to leave American diplomats in Benghazi after an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade involved poor judgement.   Alzheimer's could also explain the poor judgeent shown in using a private email server.

Memory loss is the symptom most of us think of as being associated with Alzheimer's:  Thus, Hillary's inability to remember important facts about Benghazi and other events could be a symptom of Alzheimer's.

Misplacing things:   Those lost emails could indicate Alzheimer's.

Withdrawal from social situations: Hillary's unwillingness to hold press conferences could indicate Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's can be difficult to diagnose in its early stages.   The above examples of Hillary's behavior could indicate Alzheimer's or could indicate normal conditions.   For example, her poor decisions could just indicate limited intelligence.

Russia Isn't America's Enemy

Hillery Clinton claims that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.   Actually, it's Hillary Clinton and her supporters I don't trust with nuclear weapons.   Based on comments made at the Democratic convention they still think Russia is our enemy.

Hillary's preoccupation with nuclear weapons implies she thinks there is a possibility of a new cold war with Russia even though there would be  no reason for such a war.unless she created one

We need a president who recognizes that Russia is not our enemy.  The Cold War ended decades ago.

Russia is not our enemy.  Neither is the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or the People's Republic of China.   There is no international communist conspiracy to take over the world.  The United States is even normalizing relations with Cuba.

Anti-Russian groups  misrepresent Russia as the villain in the Ukraine civil war  instead of recognizing that the real villain  is the  European Union and/or President Barack Obama.

The fact is that when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a demand to turn control of Ukraine over to the European Union, a Nazi Germany like "fifth column" overthrew the legitimate government and replaced it with an EU puppet government.  There is disagreement about whether the EU or President Barack Obama directed the coup.  The West Europeans and the United States both have a history of such behavior.   The quick recognition of the rebel's control by the EU means the EU was aware of the plot even if it didn't order it.

The illegal change in government broke any contract between Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.   The people of Crimea were free to become independent or seek an association with Russia.  Thus there is nothing wrong with Russia working with Crimea.

 The anti-Russian attitudes expressed by some of the rebels created an understandable fear of  a Balkan type "ethnic cleansing" campaign against ethnic Russians.   Ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine recognized they were not wanted  and sought to separate from Ukraine.  Russia has been far more restrained in responding to this situation then the United States has been in the past.  

The United States has invaded other countries for far less significant reasons.  The U.S. invasion of Libya could be used as justification for Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.

Reactionary Justices Resurrect Plessy v. Ferguson Attitude

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. 

Slick Willie Spins Princess Hillary Fairy Tale

Liars characteristically become so overconfident that they try to get away with obvious lies.

Former President Bill Clinton's fairy tale like biography of Hillary's life omitted some significant facts and ended with a blatant lie.  Slick Willie  implied Hillary's early career was about charity type work.  He omitted the fact she had a  high prestige job with the Senate Watergate Committee perhaps because he didn't want to remind  people Hillary  and President Richard Nixon both avoided prosecution for their questionable actions.

Slick Willie mentioned that Hillary got a job with the "oldest law firm west of the Mississippi" without mentioning that the Rose Law Firm would become  a symbol of corruption after Hillary's association with it.  He didn't mention the fact that a firm whose clients could have problems with the state might have hired the Arkansas Attorney General's wife to gain leverage with state agencies.  .

Slick Willie ended his discussion with a blatant lie about Hillary helping resolve conflicts in other countries.  .I doubt that the residents of Libya and other Middle Eastern countries she helped wreck would agree with him.   The families of the men she allowed to die in Benghazi have already said they don't trust her. 

The British government pulled its diplomats out of Benghazi after at attempt to kill its ambassador.  Why did Hillary leave our ambassador there to die? 

Wolves in Women's Clothing

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?

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 makes women second class citizens. 

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 because of the bullying prolem. 

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.

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.  

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

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?

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.

Can Old Lady Clinton Understand Benghazi Significance?

The thing that most bothers me about Hillary Clinton's comments about Benghazi is that she doesn't seem to understand why people are concerned about her mishandling of the Benghazi situation.   She doesn't seem to understand that her mishandling of the situation allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory at Benghazi by killing the top U.S. official in Libya.    Clinton doesn't seem to understand why her use of a private email server threatened national security.

The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time it killed an al Qaeda leader including killing Osama bin Laden .   An intelligent Secretary of State would have wanted to prevent the enemy from being able to kill any American ambassador.  Clinton foolishly decided to make it as easy as  possible for al Qaeda to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Her handling of the situation would have made more sense if she had wanted him to die.

Clinton's   attempt to make a diplomatic facility at Benghazi permanent was the biggest American battlefield mistake since the Battle of Hamburger Hill in the Vietnam War.  The war on terror has made much of the world a potential battle field.   The enemy can attack any where, at any time even in San Bernardino California.

In May, 1969, the commanding general of the 101st Airborne made a foolish decision to try to take a well defended but worthless piece of real estate that became known as Hamburger Hill.  The Americans suffered heavy casualties and failed to take the hill which the enemy then abandoned.  

Clinton had ample warning that the ambassador would be in eminent danger in Benghazi.  The consulate had already suffered two minor attacks.  There had been attacks on the Tunisian consulate and the U.N. Special Envoy's convoy.   The International Red Cross closed its office after it was attacked.   The British government withdrew its diplomats  from Benghazi after an attack on its ambassador's convoy.

Clinton's critics have focused on the inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate and ignored the fact that the facility shouldn't have been defended in the first place.   A competent Secretary of State would have followed the example of the International Red Cross and the British government and abandoned a  building that wasn't worth the loss of American lives.

Clinton's use of a less secure private email server may have made it possible for al Qaeda leaders to learn the United States wouldn't defend the consulate

The advice of the old gambler in the Kenny Rogers song "The Gambler" applies to war as well as poker

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run."

  The United States should have walked away from Benghazi.    There is no shame in walking a way from a battle that cannot be won.  In the early years of World War II the British army walked away from  France and the United States army walked away from the Philippines because the locations couldn't be defended at that time.

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

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

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.

The Only Way to Stop Trump

It's probably too late for Republicans to keep Donald Trump from getting the Republican presidential nomination.  There is a  remote possibility that Gov. John R. Kasich could defeat Trump if Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz dropped out and threw their support to Kasich.

Neither Rubio nor Cruz has any chance of winning the nomination.  They appeal to only a portion of Republicans with little chance of appealing to those Republicans who don't call the selves "conservatives".  Many of the people who are voting for Trump are only doing so because  they don't want Cruz or Rubio and Trump is the only other Republican with a chance to win the nomination.

If Cruz and Rubio drop out the voters who are supporting Trump as the least of the three "evils" might switch to Kasich    If there are enough Republicans in this category, Kasich might be able to compete with Trump.

Perhaps Rubio and Cruz could be bought off with promises of positions in a Kasich administration.  Rubio is a plausible vice presidential running mate.  Cruz could be offered the Attorney General position
with a secret promise of a Supreme Court nomination late in the administration.

Powerful Women Have Babies - Powerless Women Get Abortions

Contrary to the claim of abortion advocates, abortions don't empower women.  Abortions disempower women.

Humans are the most powerful creatures on earth.   The most powerful humans are the ones who can make new humans.   A pregnant woman is demonstrating her  power to make a human being.  An abortion stops that power from continuing.

Some people think they are being powerful when they kill others or destroy property.   However,  those actions don't require much power.  It doesn't take much power to pull a trigger or throw a rock through a window.  The real power is making [giving birth to] the person who is killed or making or installing a window.

It takes power to finish a job.  Quitting doesn't require any power, but may be an admission that the person lacks the necessary power to complete the task.

People often resort to violence when they lack the mental "power", or ability, to deal with personal conflicts.   If their world starts to collapse, they start shooting people.  Women who choose abortions are indicating they lack the mental strength or power to continue a pregnancy.  They are saying they are powerless rather than powerful.

Republicans Who Don't Want Trump Need a Viable Alternate Candidate

Those Republicans who don't want Donald Trump need a better alternative candidate than either member of the Cuban junior varsity.  

Neither Senator Ted Cruz nor Senator Marco Rubio can win in November.  Cruz and his supporters aren't even smart enough to realize that he isn't eligible to be president.  Rubio might be a viable candidate when he grows up, but right now he's just an inexperienced virtual political child.   Their only appeal is to Republican true believers who don't understand that most people don't share their simplistic view of political reality. 

The Republican Party is a minority party and must attract Democrats and Independents to win.  Cruz and Rubio can't attract Independents or Democrats.  The only thing they can do is attract enough Republicans to keep Trump's competitors from winning  enough votes to compete.   If they had stayed out of the race it is very possible that one or two of the governors would have been competitive with Trump.   Some of those who want a candidate outside of politics  might be supporting Dr. Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina if they hadn't been stuck at the back of the pack because they couldn't pass the Cubans. 

Trump is winning because the Cubans have eliminated his competition.  Those who would have voted for the other candidates have switched to Trump as it has become apparent the other candidates cannot  win.  Trump is also winning because people recognize he is a leader who is larger than life.  He's the only presidential candidate since President Ronald Reagan who is larger than life.  Being larger than life refers to a person's personality.  Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were larger than life in spite of their flaws.

Trump's opponents may have waited too long to stop him.  The longer they wait the lower their chances of stopping Trump. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush may be the only ones who have enough name recognition to have a chance.

Cruz is a naturalized citizen because his citizenship come from naturalization law.  He did not become a citizen by being born.  He became a citizen because his parents met the conditions necessary to have a child become a naturalized citizen.

A natural born citizen automatically and unconditionally becomes a citizen at birth if the birth occurs in the United States.    Consider the following examples.  A Mexican woman crosses the border into Arizona.  Fifteen yards into Arizona she gives birth.  They child would be a citizen because it was born in the U.S.   In a Los Angeles hospital an Iraqi woman gives birth just before dying from wounds she received while conducting a terrorist attack.  In spite of the mother's actions the child would become a citizen because it was born in the U.S. 

Cruz did not automatically become a citizen at birth because his mother had to meet certain conditions to obtain citizenship for him.  If she had only been 18 when he was born he could not have become a citizen.  If she hadn't been married to his father he could not have become a citizen.  

The Apprentice and the Presidential Island

I've  never been interested in the survivor type programs, including  Donald Trump's sophisticated program "The Apprentice", but am familiar with the basic way they work.  

"The Apprentice" provides the best model for choosing a president, but the political parties should also consider the process of "voting people off the island".   On the basic "Survivor"    programs contestants are divided into tribes and work together to survive in a wilderness setting.  They conduct periodic votes in which individuals are gradually "voted off the  island" until only one remains.  On "The Apprentice" contestants are assigned business related tasks.  Donald Trump, or comparable people in other countries, gradually eliminates  the least productive individuals by telling them "you're fired."

 Trump based his decisions on how well the individual contestants "walked the walk" rather than how well they "talked the talk."   Those who want to be the U.S. CEO [i.e.,  president] should have to first demonstrate they can run an organization such as a major corporation or state first.   Those candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio who have never run an organization should be fired or kicked  off the island in the first round.    Any candidate can mumble the appropriate political cliches and promise  to do this, that and the other thing.  Would be presidents need to demonstrate that they actually can do this, that and the other thing.
 
Governors should be the easiest to evaluate because their duties are similar to the president's particularly  in the area of working with the legislative branch of government.   Both corporate CEO's and governors  can be evaluated on how well they select subordinates. For example,  the New Jersey "bridgegate" scandal raises questions about  how well Gov. Chris Christie selects subordinates .  Voters would want to how well governors delivered on the promises that got them elected.   Investors are usually interested in the  profitability of a business which can depend on economic conditions.  Voters should be more interested in the type  of risks a CEO took while running the business.  For example, did the CEO take calculated risks or take reckless chances, or perhaps just continue doing things they had always been done.   Governors can also be evaluated on whether continued doing things the way they had always been done or found more effective ways to providing government services.

Democrats should have voted "Calamity" Clinton off their island long ago.  Calamity has been an ongoing disaster for the Democrats since her husband began running for President. She has a history of bad decisions. Her foolish decision to represent a corrupt savings and loan before a board appointed by her husband caused the appointment of a special prosecutor who eventually charged Bill with perjury. Opposition to  the health care plan she developed early in his administration helped the Republicans take control of Congress. 

She had our ambassador stay in Benghazi in spite of an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade in that city in June.  She seems unable to understand that she could have prevented his assassination by withdrawing him from Benghazi prior to 9/11/2012.  Many American cities recognize the possibility to terrorist activity on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.  Why didn't Clinton?  Her foolish decision to use a private e-mail server while Secretary of State may have compromised national security.

Wrong Groups Protest Illegal Immigration

Protests of illegal immigration into the United States are peculiar because the wrong groups are protesting.

Most of those protesting immigration are white folks who don't want the entry level jobs the illegal immigrants usually take, particularly those involving manual labor or domestic service.   These jobs are the type of jobs young blacks need to enter the labor force.  Members of ethnic groups trying to enter the American labor force often begin with the least desirable jobs so that their children can have an opportunity for better jobs later.    The loss of entry level  jobs to illegal immigrants is keeping black unemployment higher than it should be.   Hispanic ancestry citizens and those who are in the country legally also can lose jobs to those who are in the country illegally.

President Barack Obama is undoubtedly encouraging illegal immigration because the corporate interests that bought the White House for him want a labor surplus so they can keep wages down and find people who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage. 

The immigrants that take jobs from whites  often are legal immigrants.   Some tech companies use the H1B immigration program to replace American employees with immigrants who will work for less.

Many of those who complain about "illegals" have the misconception that they are all from Mexico and come into the country by illegally crossing the border from Mexico.   Many of those who enter the country by illegally crossing the border are from Central America rather of Mexico.   Some of those who enter the country illegally arrive by sea from Asia, the Middle East or Africa.    Many of those who are in the country illegally entered the country legally on student or tourist visas and simply "forgot" to leave.

Why Is Rush Limbaugh Helping the Democrats?

Rush Limbaugh doesn't understand that he is the best friend the Democrats have.  He is helping them get the devotion of the Main Stream Media.

Most national journalists don't understand  politics, but somewhere they got the notion that politics is like fifties television westerns.  They believe politics is a contest between good guys and bad guys and the good guys are called "liberals".  Journalists have no idea what the term "liberal" means, but they are convinced "liberals" are the Roy Rogers and Lone Ranger of politics. 

Limbaugh may score points with those who consider themselves "conservatives" when he mislabels Democrats as "liberals", but the practice helps Democrats get media and public support they do not deserve.

There was a time when Democrats could be considered liberals, but liberals do not always remain liberals.  Friedrich Nietzsche  once observed:  "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."  

Once liberals get what they want, they defend their creations like a mama bear protecting her cubs.

The fact is that liberal Democrats are an endangered, if not extinct, political species. Most national level Democrats tend to be ultraconservative elitist control freaks and thus the antithesis of liberals.  

Real liberals look for new approaches to dealing with social problems and operating government.  Democrats haven't had a new idea in 50  years.  They have only one approach to dealing with social problems -- heavy government regulation and large spending programs controlled from Washington.

Real liberals tolerate the opinions of others.  Democrat are "true believers"  who attack anyone with the audacity to suggest Democrats are wrong regardless of how simple-minded the Democrat favored ideas are. 

Real liberals have compassion.  Democratic leaders favor policies that would please Adolph Hitler.  Democrats believe in aborting babies which don't possess the characteristics Hitler desired for his "master race".   No real liberal could support abortion. 

Real liberals would recognize that there is only one race of Americans, if not humanity in general.   Democrats practice Archie Bunker "politics".   For those unfamiliar with the old "All in the Family" television show,  Archie Bunker was a bigoted character who lived with his wife and their daughter and her husband.   An ad for the show used a segment in which Archie explained a "balanced" political ticket to his son-in-law Michael.  Archie may have used different words, but he explained that his party ran a black candidate for one position, a Jew for one position, an Italian for another, etc. and a "Regular American", a white guy like Archie, for the final position.     Democrats believe Americans belong to different races with all members within an ethic group wanting the same thing. 

Like Archie Bunker, Democrats believe only white people are the regular Americans and everyone else is a quasi American.   For example, to Democrats black Americans are Africans [living in] America and those with Asian ancestry are Asians [living in] America.

Limbaugh also lies when he says Democrats are anti-business or anti-corporation.   The fact is that Democrats are just as pro-business as Republicans, but Democrats often favor different businesses than Republicans. 

Democrats tend  to favor businesses that want something from government and thus are willing to help Democrats win elections.  For example,  health insurance companies were  upset because some people weren't buying their over priced health insurance.  The companies convinced their pet Democrats to pass legislation requiring everyone to obtain health insurance, with penalties for those who don't comply.  If Democrats hadn't been pro-business, the program would have set up a government run program financed by a tax based on a person's ability to pay, with people being allowed to escape the tax by purchasing private insurance.

Democrats also demonstrate their pro-corporation inclination by their support for the greatest corporate fraud in history, Enron's global warming scam.  The claim that changes in the carbon dioxide content of the air of a few parts per million could change air temperatures is so absurd,  it should be recognized as obviously false by any intelligent person.

Real liberals tend to be optimists who look on the positive side.  Democrats belong to the "disaster of the month club".    They warn of impending doom if their policies are not followed on issues like global warming nonsense.

Liberal President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."  Today's Democrats say we should fear this, that and the other thing." 

Limbaugh's continued misrepresentation of Democrats as "liberals" gives them a positive image they do not deserve.  The Democratic Party is a rotten apple that is corrupt to its core.  Democrats think they are better than the rest of us, but are really worse.

9th Circuit Court Would Likely Keep Cruz Off Ballot

Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn't eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.   If Republicans make the mistake of nominating Cruz for President of the United States,  Democrats in California and other states will challenge his eligibility.  There's at least a 90% probability the  9th Circuit Court in San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen rather than a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution.

Then Republicans would have to choose whether to take a chance on the Supreme Court overturning the ruling or replace Cruz with someone else.   Either way the Republican campaign would be delayed and the Democrat would  be able to run unopposed for some time.  Republicans would have trouble getting a campaign started.

Article 2 of the United States Constitution establishes eligibility for the office of  President of the United States:  "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."    The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Cruz was not born in the United States so he cannot be a "natural born citizen" of the United States.  He is a  naturalized citizen because his mother took advantage of a naturalization "short cut"  that allows some U.S citizens to obtain citizenship for their children who are born outside the United States.   This naturalization process is not automatic and is not available to all children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States.    Children born in the United States are automatically citizens.   The parents of children outside the United States must request the child be given citizenship and demonstrate they are eligible to  obtain citizenship for their children

When Cruz was born a child could only qualify for citizenship under this provision in naturalization law  if at least one citizen parent had lived in the United States for at least 10 years, including five years after the age of 14, and the parents were married to each other.  Barack Obama had to provide evidence he was born in Hawaii to be a U.S. citizen. He could not have become a citizen if he had been born in Kenya  because his mother  had not lived in the United States the required five years after her 14th birthday.  Thousands of individuals fathered by American soldiers in Vietnam could not become U.S. citizens by this procedure because their fathers were  not married to their mothers.

A federal appeals court that would order states to accept same sex marriage would not hesitate to keep an ineligible presidential candidate off the ballot, particularly a candidate who would be likely to nominate Supreme Court justices who might vote to overturn the appeals court's rulings.

Whoopi Goldberg Rejects Racist Label

ABC's "The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg has joined fellow "View" co-host Raven-Symoné   in rejecting the extremely racist term "African-American". 

“You know what uh uh! This is my country,” Goldberg said. “My mother, my grandmother, my great-grand folks, we busted ass to be here. I’m sorry. I’m an American. I’m not an African-American, I’m not a chick American, I’m an American!”

In October, 2014, Raven told Oprah Winfrey' "I'm tired of being labeled. I'm an American. I'm not an African American; I'm an American."

The time has come to eliminate this term "African-American" which perpetuates the old Southern racist concept that dark complexioned Americans are a separate race from light complexioned Americans.     Those using the term essentially rely on the racist concept of "part black all black" [the one drop rule] rather than looking at all of a person's ancestors.

For example, journalists routinely label Asian ancestry golfer Tiger Woods "African-American" even though  he has an Asian mother and a father with Asian and North American ancestry as well as some ancestors from sub-Sahara Africa.     Raven-Symoné obviously has more skin complexion genes from ancestors outside of Africa than from sub-Saharan Africa ancestors.  A century ago someone with her complexion might  have decided to leave her family and pass for white.  

Those who use the term "African-American" don't seem to understand that Africa refers to a continent, not a group of people.  The Sahara Desert divides the continent into two genetically and culturally different populations.   North American slaves came from the area south of the Sahara.  In this post I will use "African" to designate persons from south of the Sahara.

Southern racism treated dark complexioned individuals as if their only ancestors came from Africa.    The term "Africa-American" perpetuates this false claim.   The fact is that African DNA began mixing with British DNA at Jamestown in the early 17th Century.  The first Africans arrived at Jamestown in1619 and were treated like the white indentured servants.   Indentured servants were temporary slaves who used their labor to pay off a debt.  In the North American colonies the  debt was likely the cost of travel to the colony.  Many of the Irish indentured servants, like the Africans, were  forced to move to North America.     For the Africans, the debt was the purchase price from the slave traders.   Many of those with African ancestry who were brought to North America came from the West Indies rather than directly from Africa.   Some of these may have had some European or western hemisphere ancestry. 

Marriages across the color line began occurring even before African indentured servant  John Punch married a white woman, who was probably also an indentured servant,  in 1636.  Four years later Punch was sentenced by a judge to be the first permanent slave in the British North American colonies after he and two other indentured servants ran away.  Punch's marriage deserves special attention because it is the earliest marriage to produce traceable descendants.  Nobel Prize winner Ralph Bunch is one of his black descendants.   One of his white descendants is Stanley Ann Dunham the mother of President Barack Obama.

In the early years of the Virginia colony people sometimes had to marry across the black, white and red color lines because the small population reduced the number of potential mates.    A similar situation existed in Spanish and French North American settlements.  The earliest connection between an African and North Americans occurred in Spanish Florida in 1526 when a slave escaped and was accepted by a North American village.    The practice of accepting escaped slaves would continue in the British colonies and later in the United States. 

The process of British and African genetic integration accelerated briefly after the British government authorized permanent slavery.   The law said that a child's status [slave or free] would be determined by the status of the mother.  A white child of a slave mother would become an indentured servant. A black child would become a permanent slave.  Slave owners knew that a child with a black parent and a white parent would be black so they forced their white female indentured servants to mate with their African male slaves.   White male indentured servants  had little choice but to mate with African female slaves.

Only about 500,000 Africans were imported to North America during the  nearly 200 years the slave trade was legal with most of them arriving before America won its independence.  The first U.S. census showed a population in 1790 of  3,172,000 whites and 757,000 blacks.    Thus it is likely that most descendants of slaves had multiple  ancestors living in North America before the Revolution.    The descendants of slaves could have a hundred  different ancestors who were living in North America before the American Revolution.  At seven generations back a person can have 128 different ancestors.

In slave societies it is common for males in the owner class to have sex with female members of the slave class especially unmarried females.  Unmarried female slaves may even encourage such attention to gain better treatment.   White male - black female relationships were common in New Orleans during the Spanish and French because men from these countries often arrived without wives.  The introduction of European DNA into the black population continued during the Jim Crow era when southern white men were able to rape black women without fear of punishment.

The introduction of African DNA into the white population was more indirect because those babies who received dark complexion genes would be born with dark complexions.  African DNA involving other than skin color genes entered the white  population when persons with African ancestry were born without  the dark complexion genes and passed for white.  Some descendants of the early unions between Africans and Europeans had "lost" enough dark complexion genes to pass for white by the American Revolution.   This process would continue.  By 1800 some slaves qualified as white such as Thomas Jefferson's concubine Sally Hemings. No paintings of her are available, but she was described as white with long straight hair.  

It seems likely that many who passed for white didn't tell their children.   .President Warren G. Harding was aware he had recent  black ancestry but Ann Dunham apparently did not know she had African ancestry. If she had known she likely would have told her son Barack.  Some people believe as many as five other presidents could have African ancestors.

The dark skinned descendants of slaves should be allowed to claim all their ancestors, not just the ones who came from Africa.  Their ancestors came here and became a new people who are a blend of peoples from three, and in some cases four, continents.  They only have some genes in common with the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa.  The Americans who have some African ancestors made their own culture after they got here.    They helped make this country what it is and deserve to be recognized as full fledged Americans -- not quasi Americans.

It's time we Americans recognize that America is not the home of a black race and a white race, but instead is the home of a single race  whose ancestors were red and yellow, black and white.

The Impressions lamented in their song "This is My Country"  --
"Some people think we don't have the right
To say its my country
Before they give in, they'd rather fuss and fight
Than say its my country"

It's time we started encouraged the descendants of slaves to call America, rather than Africa their country.  If light skinned Americans whose ancestors all arrived after the Civil War can call themselves 100% Americans, why must dark skinned Americans whose ancestors may have arrived before the American Revolution be treated as part American and part something else.   Many slaves earned their freedom by helping to defeat the British during the Revolution.    
 
 

Sen. Ted Cruz Is a Naturalized Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen

The United States Constitution requires  presidents to be "natural born citizens".   The original  Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen", but the 14th Amendment states there are two categories of U.S. citizens:  those who are born in the United States and those who are naturalized under Acts of Congress.

Sen. Ted Cruz was not born in the United States so his citizenship is conferred by Congress under its naturalization authority.  Children born to U.S. citizens outside the United States do not automatically qualify as U,S, citizens under the Constitution.   They can only qualify if a parent meets the criteria required by the law.  For example, when Cruz was born one U.S. citizen  parent had to have lived in the United States for 10 years before the birth with at least five of those  years coming after the 14th birthday.  t

The criteria can be changed by Congress at any time.  For example, Congress might decide to require that both parents be citizens or change the residency requirements.  The specific criteria required of Cruz or others  aren't important.  The important point is that a person whose citizenship is due to naturalization law cannot be a "natural born citizen".

Cruz has stated that he never checked to see if he became a Canadian citizen when he was born in Canada until the Dallas Morning News said he was a Canadian citizen.  I hope that he checked to see if any required applications for U.S.  citizenship registration have been met.   If registration requirements have not been met, Cruz is not any kind of U.S. citizen.

Democrats Should Draft Sebelius for President

Democrats should encourage former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to run for president.    She would be a far better choice for president than Hillary Clinton who would never have gotten any place in politics if her husband Bill hadn't served as President of the United States;

Will the race for the Democratic presidential candidate be a repeat of 1968?     In 1968 Democrats entered the primary season expecting to nominate President Lyndon Johnson for reelection.   After Johnson's poor showing in New Hampshire, he withdrew from the race and Democrats had to find a new candidate.  Democrats may have more time to recover this year than they did in 1968.  Hillary is already slipping behind an unknown candidate,  Democrats need to recognize she has no chance even with the Clinton Broadcast System running a show designed to con people into thinking that Hillary was a capable Secretary of State.

Democrats who support Hillary Clinton ignore her past association with disasters including her decision before the 1992 election to represent the corrupt Whitewater Savings and Loan before a board appointed by her husband Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.  That decision caused the appointment of a special prosecutor which eventually resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton on an unrelated matter.  The health care proposal she developed was so unpopular it helped Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.

Hillary's service as Secretary of State was a disaster.   Her incompetence allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory in Libya when the terrorist organization used a mob to kill the American Ambassador to Libya.   Those familiar with al Qaeda knew it was likely to try something on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack during an American presidential year.   Clinton shouldn't have needed CIA torture to figure out that the instability in Libya made it an ideal target.   A competent Secretary of State would have reduced the potential for a successful attack in Libya by having the Ambassador and his staff attend some type of conference at NATO headquarters or some other European country.  At the very least she should have ordered the Ambassador to stay in the capital so the Libyan government could help protect him.

The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time Americans killed an al Qaeda leader in some Middle Eastern country.  Thus the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya was a major al Qaeda victory.

Kathleen Sebelius made her own way in politics.    Her father had been a governor, but in Indiana rather than Kansas.   Her father-in-law was a popular member of the Kansas Congressional delegation, but he was a Republican and Sebelius is a Democrat.   Sebelius was elected governor as a Democrat twice in heavily Republican Kansas.    Clinton won election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in heavily Democratic New York.

Sebelius had to deal with controversy during her tenure in the Obama cabinet because Obama assigned her  the near impossible task of implementing Obama's overly complicated health care system.   As I had expected there were some significant problems, particularly with the computer software,  but she handled them effectively.

I don't agree with some of her political views, particularly the global warming nonsense.  However, I would consider voting for her for president because she is a competent executive which is what we need in the White House.  If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton I will have to vote for the Republican to keep her out of the White House.

Hillary Clinton has handicapped the Democratic Party in the coming presidential election.  She has preempted the publicity for the Democratic Party allowing the Republican candidates to be better known than other potential Democratic candidates.   Democrats need to encourage Sebelius, Vice President Joe Biden, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and other potential candidates to get in the race now so they won't have to start from scratch if Hillary's campaign crashes during the primary season.  

Taliban Like Attitudes in American South

The world cringed when the Taliban destroyed ancient Buddhist Statues in Afghanistan.  The Taliban destroyed the historic artifacts because Buddhist statues represented something the Taliban considered immoral.  They didn't want people to be reminded that people in the region had at one time been involved in something that was no longer considered morally acceptable.   Buddhist statues were not "politically correct" under the Taliban's view of the Muslim religion.  Allowing the statues to stay advertised that Afghans had once behaved in what the Taliban regarded as an immoral fashion.  Recent reports claim that ISIS may be doing the same thing to historic artifacts where they are operating.

People in New Orleans, La., and other southern cities want to remove statues of men who had the audacity to not have the same moral values people have today.   Many southerners prior to the Civil War accepted the African and Muslim moral value that it was acceptable for one person  to own others.   Africans had been  buying, selling and owning each other for thousands of years and they had no problem with selling their fellow  Africans to Europeans like they had been selling their fellow Africans to people in the Middle East.

The men whose statues are the subject of controversy in New Orleans were born into a society that had long accepted slavery.   They thought they had no other option for recruiting workers for their plantations because people wouldn't voluntarily do such work.   As far as they knew, plantations had always been worked by slaves.  They were not evil men.  They simply lacked the ability to "think outside the box" of slavery.

Instead of trying to censor history, southern cities should use the Civil War as an example of what can happen when politicians cannot find ways to resolve their differences.  Slavery had caused the United States to become two different nations with different economic needs and perspectives.   Politicians from the north and the south were so stuck in their own little worlds that they couldn't consider the  needs of the other part of the country. 

About the only thing the white people who controlled both the northern and southern states could agree on was that they both supported the myth that black people were inferior to white people.   Northern whites didn't want slavery in their states because they were bigots who hated the people who were held as slaves.

As the great grandson of a Union soldier I have never really understood why southerners would want to erect statues of losers.   I doubt that the statues were erected because without the actions of men like Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robert E. Lee slavery would likely have continued for decades. The decision by the southern states to leave the Union provoked northern politicians into acting against slavery.  Gen. Lee's ability to prolong the war even convinced northern politicians to guarantee the freed slaves and other blacks equal rights that many northern states denied to their black residents.