African-American Is a Racist Label

 Whoopi Goldberg and Raven-Symoné   have  rejected 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.    
 

Are Women Today Weaker than Women Fifty Years Ago?

Abortion supporters claim that making a baby is too much for many women today.   The poor little things purportedly need abortions  because they cannot handle such a difficult and demanding task.  Abortion supporters tell working class women they can only be empowered by working for someone else.

I don't know what percentage of modern women really lack the strength to make babies, but I know that some modern women are as strong or even stronger than women 50 years ago.   A woman I worked with before I retired was mopping floors and emptying trash a couple of weeks before giving birth to a baby who was over ten pounds.  One of the local judges successfully ran against an incumbent judge while pregnant.  My niece, the  aeronautical engineer, has had two children.  Tarter farm equipment executive vice president Ann Tarter recently had a daughter.   A young woman in Wichita who became pregnant after being raped at 14, decided to go ahead and have her baby  After completing high school she got a bachelor's degree and is now teaching special education while working on a master's degree in special education while raising her daughter.

The facts are today's women are just as capable of handling the rigors of making a baby as their mothers and grandmothers.   The ability to make new human beings makes women the superior sex.  Nothing empowers a woman more than having a baby.  Mothers have the power to influence what their children become. Those who have a strong influence may also impact additional generations.

Women who work for the man from 9 to 5 have no power.  They are just cogs in some corporation.  The relative handful of women who have creative jobs like teachers, engineers  and journalists may have some power but those who work on assembly lines or wait on tables have no power.  

The rich women who are pushing abortion want to exploit women- not empower them.   They want women to help corporations make money instead of building their own families.  Women who build families have a lasting impact on society.  Women who are corporate cogs do not. 

Powerful women make babies.  Powerless women get abortions. 

Put Immigrants in Democratic Districts

If President Donald Trump can't keep the caravan from entering the country, he should try to transport the participants to congressional districts whose  voters elected a Democrat to Congress.  Many Democrats want to encourage immigration so we should expect voters in those districts to welcome immigrants and be willing to share local resources including jobs with immigrants.

  Voters who don't want more immigrants in their districts shouldn't elect politicians who want to increase immigration..  Voters in higher income districts shouldn't vote to encourage immigration unless they are  willing to have new immigrants for neighbors

Millennials Should Break the Cycle of Alternating Political Parties

For the last century control of the United States has cycled between the 19th Century Democratic and Republican parties.  Voters choose between the old ideas of the Democratic Party and the old ideas of the Republican Party.    The two parties are mired in the same old partisan conflicts election after election. The Democrats in particular seem more interested in playing partisan political games than in dealing seriously with the nation's problems.  Republicans are increasingly following their example.

Millennials need to decide whether they want to continue the politics of their grandparents' generation or replace the 19th Century parties with 21st Century parties. 

President Donald Trump has compared Washington to a swamp.  One of the most unpleasant aspects of swamps is stagnant water due to a lack of fresh water flowing into the swamp to  push the stagnant water out.   Washington is a swamp because of a lack of new ideas.  New parties could bring new ideas to Washington and the rest of country like fresh water entering a swamp.

Replacing a political party can take a couple of elections.  Thus, Congressional candidates, as well as candidates for other offices, need to remind voters that even if the third party candidate doesn't win this year, voters will be telling the "outdated parties" that voters want new options.   A strong finish will make it easier for the candidate to run again or encourage a  replacement    In districts in which there  is no third party candidate, Millenials might get together and agree to support one of their number to run as a write in candidate.

At the national level the party out of power is easiest to replace because it has fewer entrenched incumbents.   Thus, third party candidates running for Congress should say they are THE alternative to the Republicans regardless of which party the incumbent in that district belongs to. 

Voters a century ago had negative attitudes toward the major parties.   Voters began voting for third party candidates.   The effort didn't replace either party, but the third parties did force changes in the actions of the parties.   Major changes included direct election of Senators and giving women the right to vote

FBI Incapable of Investigating Christine Ford Allegation

It would be impossible for the FBI to determine what, if anything, happened at the time Christine Blasey Ford claimed to have been attacked.  

The FBI cannot examine the scene of the alleged attack for evidence because even if the building is still there it likely has been cleaned many times since that evening.  The building might even have been remodeled and the furniture replaced. 

Ford is the only apparent witness who remembers the incident and she had been drinking.  It wouldn't have taken very much alcohol to impair the perception of a 15 year old girl.  Her description could also fit a situation in which she briefly passed out and was placed on the bed by some boy other than Brett  Kavanaugh who fell on top of her because he was drunk.   She might just have guessed at who the boy was later when she tried to remember what happened.  She might been having a dream while she was passed out and remembered the dream as being part of what actually happened.   

Incidentally, it would have been unlikely for her to have told her parents  for fear of being punished for getting into such a situation.

There is no way for the FBI or anyone else to determine with any degree of certainty what actually happened that day.  The Senate has wasted too much time on a matter that cannot be resolved. 

Those who are attempting to make a major issue out of this are ignoring the fact that states today prohibit teenagers from drinking because teens have even more trouble than adults controlling their actions when they are drinking.  If Kavanaugh was there and did anything wrong it was because,  according to Ford,  he was drunk and thus not in control of his behavior.

What Was Ford Doing at a Party with 4 Boys?

Has anyone asked  Christine Blasey Ford   why she attended a party with four boys -- if there was a party?  

Most of us would suspect that a girl  at a party with four boys  was the "entertainment".  Considering the way teenage peer pressure works, it is likely she would have been drinking along with the boys, if there was a party.  If  she had been drinking, then her memory of the event would be  unreliable.  She might not remember exactly what happened or even who was at the party. 

I say "if there was a party" because  of how she supposedly "remembered" the alleged attack in a therapy session.  "Remembering" alleged childhood sexual incidents in therapy sessions is a characteristic of "false memories".

 There is no good reason to delay the confirmation process for  Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh .   If Ford wanted her allegation investigated she should have come forward at the start of the process. 

Did Barack Obama Help Donald Trump Defeat Hillary Clinton?

If  the Russian hacking operation helped Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, as many Democrats believe, then President Barack Obama obviously helped Trump defeat Clinton by allowing the Russians to hack the Democrats' emails.  Although I doubt that the Russian hacking had any impact on the election, I recognize  that if Obama believed the Russians would help Trump win he obviously wanted Trump to defeat Clinton. 

Why would Obama want fellow Democrat Clinton to lose to a Republican?  I don't have any inside information, but there is a persistent rumor that Obama has been plotting to return to the White House.   If Clinton had won he would not have been able to run again until 2024.  With Republican Trump in the White House, Obama can run again in 2020.   The media have blamed Trump for the hacking operation and ignored reports that Obama was aware of it and didn't stop it.  Obviously, if Obama had wanted Clinton to win he would have tried to stop any Russian effort that could have kept her from winning. 

Is Robert Mueller Covering Up Major Russian Espionage?

Robert Mueller and his staff may be covering up the biggest act of espionage in the United States since the acquisition of atomic secrets by the Russians at the start of the Cold War.  Mueller is supposed to be investigating what the Russian hackers called "Fancy Bear" did during the 2016 election.  However, he continues to ignore an Associated Press expose indicating Fancy Bear focused on non-partisan email users including defense industry employees and those in the intelligence community.  According to the AP,   Department of Justice employees were aware of  what Fancy Bear was doing, but didn't warn those whose emails were being hacked.  .  Fancy Bear used access to the Democrats national committee emails as a cover story to hide what may have been the real reason for the operation from the meatheads at the Department of Justice (DOJ)..

The popular myth is that Fancy Bear was accessing the Democratic Party's emails to help Russia influence the 2016 presidential election.  Russia couldn't have used the Democratic national committee emails to influence the presidential election because the candidates' organizations run the presidential campaigns -- not the national party organizations.    It is unlikely Russia needed hackers to get the Democratic emails.   Russia almost certainly had an agent planted in the Democratic national organization who would have used a zip drive to copy emails along with general information  about party personnel and supporters. An agent in the organization can use conversations to obtain information that is never placed in the computer.  China and Israel also probably had agents in the Democrats organization.

It may come as a surprise to some politicians and journalists, but Americans and Russians and their allies have been spying on each other and attempting to influence political opinions in each other's countries for 70 years. 

It is time to recognize that Fancy Bear was conducting a major espionage operation rather than attempting to play politics.   I don't know if the Justice Department's Fancy Bear  collaborators  were just stupid or  the Russians paid them for their services.   Nor, do I know if Mueller and his staff are taking money from the Russians or they're just trying to protect "dirty" DOJ employees and possibly former President Barack Obama.     Obama's cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel has indicated Obama told DOJ employees not to stop the Russians. 

It's time for President Donald Trump to replace Mueller and his band of incompetents with investigators who  have never worked for the Department of Justice.   Their mission should be to identify and prosecute those who collaborated with the Russian hackers and to determine if the Russians were able to use the knowledge they obtained to access classified information or infiltrate corporate or government computers. 

Even if personal emails didn't contain classified information, they could have helped identify people who could be black mailed or be willing to accept bribes.   Emails could  have identified disgruntled employees who might welcome help to get even with an "unfair" employer.   A covert agent could get acquainted with the employee and then  tell the employee how he or someone he knew got even.

Cigarettes Don't Kill People

I'm tired of hearing the myth that cigarettes kill people. It reminds me of the old myth that cold temperatures cause colds.

The smoking issue is not as simple as the anti-smokers portray it.   It can involve more than just addiction to nicotine.

If smoking kills people why do so many smokers live to be over 60?

 Looking at substances that sometimes kill people demonstrates how substances can kill people directly. 

For most of us peanuts are a delicious and nutritious snack.  However, for some people with a peanut allergy peanuts can be one of the world's deadliest poisons.

College fraternity hazing incidents sometimes have someone die from drinking too much alcohol.  Combining sleeping pills and alcohol creates a deadly cocktail.

Overdoses of prescription drugs and drugs like heroin kill thousands  a year.

I have never had any connection to the tobacco industry.  I have never smoked, owned any tobacco company assets or worked in a facility that sold tobacco products.  People I cared about have died from medical conditions associated with tobacco use.
On a personal level I don't understand how people can enjoy smoking, but then smokers might not understand why I like jalapeno slices in my breakfast eggs.  On the scientific level I recognize a genetic condition that many smokers have may make smoking  a virtual necessity for them.  

Smoking is blamed for causing lung cancer even though fewer than 10% of smokers  get lung cancer.  In an extensive British study only half of smokers died of conditions associated with smoking.  If cigarettes killed people why would they kill some, but not others?

Cold temperatures don't automatically cause colds, but may make the body more vulnerable to colds.  Cold temperatures can force the body to divert energy to keeping warm which may reduce the body's ability to fight the cold virus.

Perhaps cigarettes merely increase some smokers' vulnerability to certain medical disorders.  For example, smoking may not actually cause cells to become cancerous.   Instead, the nicotine in cigarettes is capable of aiding  the growth of cancers caused by some other factor, such as asbestos.   Smokers may be more likely to take jobs which expose them  to  carcinogens.   Smoking may accelerate aging of some body parts in older smokers. 

Evaluating the relative health impact of smoking isn't as straight forward as tobacco critics assume because smokers often have a significant genetic difference from non-smokers.  Smokers tend to have what is called the"risk taker" or "trill seeker" version of the DRD4(Dopamine Receptor D4] gene.   Comparing risk taker smokers to non-risk taker non-smokers could produce an inaccurate result. Risk taking smokers conceivably could have a higher life expectancy than non-smoking risk takers, particularly those who are alcoholics or drug users.  .

Research is mixed on the existence of risk takers because how people take risks can vary. Individuals  may not consciously choose activities because they are "risky".    An individual may instead choose activities that they describe as "exciting" or "challenging".

Most people aren't athletic enough to participate in obviously risky activities like mountain climbing or skiing.  Some people take risky jobs like fire fighting.   Others prefer to take risks by gambling or having multiple sex partners.  Some men seek thrills by going out in public dressed as women.  The portrayal of smoking as a dangerous activity makes smoking attractive to young risk takers who don't feel they could physically or mentally handle other "risky" activities..  Young people often feel they can avoid the negative affects of whatever actions they take.   Alcohol and drugs like heroin appeal to other risk takers.

Criticism of smoking focuses on physical health. The risk taker gene and smoking may also impact mental health. The risk taker gene that smokers often have has a connection to mental health problems such as ADHD. (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).    Nicotine can have a calming effect and reduce anger.  

Risk taking isn't the only potential threat to a person's health.  The opposite of risk taking is boredom which can have a strong negative impact.  It might even be possible to be bored to death.  People who attempt to quit smoking sometimes experience depression and suicidal thoughts attributed to nicotine withdrawal. For risk takers these conditions might also indicate boredom due to removal of risk generated excitement

Anti-smokers treat smoking as just a "nasty" unhealthy habit.  However, smoking is actually a complex behavior that some may need because of a genetic brain condition.

Marijuana Kills People

When a mass shooting occurs, some people act as if the guns themselves are responsible rather than the people who use them,  Other people respond with the statement: "Guns don't kill people.  People do." The statement is true because guns cannot independently affect the operation of the human brain.

The brain is a complex system controlled by the interaction of various chemicals. People use marijuana because it is one of the chemicals .that can affect the operation of the brain.      Unfortunately, there is a dark side to marijuana.  In addition to creating the sensation of feeling "high", marijuana can cause behavior that kills. 

Marijuana has two ways of killing people.   Marijuana reduces the brain's ability to detect and respond appropriately to danger such as when driving a car.   Sometimes the marijuana user dies from a traffic accident.  Sometime the person who dies was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Marijuana is associated with homicidal behavior.   Marijuana violence often involves firearms.   Some of this violence is due to marijuana's tendency to induce paranoia in some people.    Marijuana heightens the sense of fear as it does the other senses.  

The sense of smell can play a role in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD].  Police officers who have had a bad experience with  drug dealers or marijuana users could become overly fearful if they smell marijuana on someone they are dealing with and be more likely to shoot than they would be otherwise.  Government needs to finance research on this  possibility.

How Mark Felt and Leon Jaworski Helped the Commies

I don't believe FBI Associate Director Mark Felt  and  Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski  deliberately set out to give "aid and comfort" to America's communist enemies, but they couldn't have done more to help the Soviet bloc countries if they had been leaders of American communists.   Their misuse of their  positions to undermine President Richard Nixon weakened the presidency and thus the ability of the United States to compete with the Soviet Bloc.

They took advantage of a botched CIA "black bag" operation to destroy Richard Nixon in spite of the fact that the United States was leading democratic nations in a long term conflict with an alliance of communist dictatorships.   The burglary fit a pattern of CIA/FBI operations later investigated by  Frank Church's Senate Committee.  Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin in their book Silent Coup state that someone convinced  White House Counsel John Dean he should have CIA personnel investigate a claim about an acquaintance of his by breaking into the Democratic party headuarters.  

The details about Watergate are not important.  What is important is that it was oneof many operations carried out by government agecies that included the bugging of Dr Martin Luther King .    The misuse of the incident to force Nixon out of office was a disaster for the United States that created opportunities for the Soviet Union and its allies   The Democratic Republic of Vietnam took advantage of the weakened United States  presidency to launch an invasion of South Vietnam that one or two B-52 raids could have ended.   The weakness of the United States  allowed Iranian students to take over the American embassy and the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan.

The strength of the United States depends upon the strength of its president.    Leon Jaworski's over throw of Nixon was a disaster for the United States in domestic policy as well as in foreign policy. The country had economic troubles for a decade after the overthrow of  the Nixon administration.

Roseanne's Tweet Isn't Racist

Slandering apes by comparing them to politicians  isn't racist because comparisons can involve both black and white politicians.   The practice  isn't new.

Who does the following rant describe?  ”This guy is weird! This guy’s, like, an ape. He’s got ape arms! He’s got, like, ape-awkward arms. This guy’s, like, an ape-awkward guy! This guyyy! Is an ape;"

No, it's not President Barack Obama.   He was a president, but he wasn't a Democrat.

No, it's not President George W  Bush.  Many people nicknamed Bush with variations of the word "Chimpy", but this president lived in a different century and had  a long lanky build..

Well would you believe "the Illinois Ape [The Original Gorilla The Orangutan in the White House]" was none other than President "Ape" Lincoln.   I mean Abe Lincoln

Valerie Jarrette  would be in good company if Roseanne had compared her to an ape,  However, Roseanne didn't say Jarrette was an ape.  Roseanne tweeted "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

Johnny Carson occasionally observed that if a comic had to explain a line it wouldn't get a laugh.   Comics rarely analyze situation.   They make observations based on  a superficial view or use an idea that comes from their subconscious.   Sometimes they will get a laugh and other times they may lay an egg.

"The Planet of the Apes" is a series of movies based on a science fiction story set in earth's distant future.   Apes have displaced complacent humans as the most intelligent species.   If Roseanne is making a negative comment about Jarrette then obviously Jarrette would be one of the "dumb" humans rather than one of the intelligent apes.

I realize that those who support the old southern one drop rule consider Jarrette black, but her DNA is more European than African.  The  people of the Middle East are white.   The Europeans originated in the Middle East.  For example, the Aryans are Indo-Iranians.

Roseanne's combining of the Muslim brotherhood with "The Planet of the Apes is interesting because the Muslim culture  is attempting to displace the European culture like apes displaced humans.

The Ultimate John Kennedy Assassination Theory [Updated]

For decades the debate over who killed President John F. Kennedy has involved one group who claims Lee Harvey Oswald did it and another blaming the CIA.  They continue to ignore the possibility both claims are correct.   The CIA is a spy organization.   Some of its agents masquerade as supporters of the enemy so they can get inside enemy organizations. 

[A few hours after posting on this subject I thought of a major reason why many of us believe Oswald might have been working for someone else instead of acting on his own.  I'll add it as a post script.]

Oswald could easily have been such a covert agent.    If so he would have been a logical choice to kill Kennedy.   The CIA might have hoped Oswald's apparent support for Cuban President Fidel Castro would cause public opinion to demand retaliation against Castro.   Oswald might have planned "to give into" expected intensive interrogation  and say the Cuban government had told him to shoot Kennedy.

I don't have any information that Oswald was or wasn't associated with the CIA.  Of course the CIA would never admit if he was with the CIA.   His previous flirtations with Russia and Cuba might have been efforts to gain information for the CIA.  The communists lack of interest in him could have indicated they were suspicious of his motives.

I have always been troubled by the fact that someone with Oswald's background was allowed to be where he was on that fateful day.   The previous school year I had done a research paper on the Secret Service.  My research indicated that the Secret Service would normally have prevented someone like Oswald from being in a building along the motorcade route.

One fact that wasn't known to the public at the time was that one of the last actions taken by the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, was the killing of General George Patton.

I have no interest in pursuing this theory further  I'll leave that decision up to those who are more familiar with the incident than I am.

P.S.  We get our beliefs about subjects such as killers from related historical events and from fiction events in television shows and movies.   The assassination of John Kennedy didn't fit the pattern of other  presidential assassinations and assassination attempts.  Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley were all killed at short range.  President Ronald Reagan was shot at short range.  Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to shoot President Gerald Ford at close range.   The Puerto Ricans  who attempted to shoot their way into President Harry Truman's residence wanted to get close enough to kill him.

The assassination of Kennedy fits the pattern of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King who was shot by paid killer James Earl Ray from concealment at a distance with  a rifle.   Oswald shot Kennedy from concealment at a distance with  a rifle.  On television and in movies professional killers. generally fire at their intended victims from concealment at a distance with a rifle

Typical presidential assassins seem to want people to know what they have done. John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln in front of people attending a play.   Professional killers usually want to get away with their crimes so they try to avoid being identified

The Ultimate John Kennedy Assassination Theory

For decades the debate over who killed President John F. Kennedy has involved one group who claims Lee Harvey Oswald did it and another blaming the CIA.  They continue to ignore the possibility both claims are correct.   The CIA is a spy organization.   Some of its agents masquerade as supporters of the enemy so they can get inside enemy organizations. 

Oswald could easily have been such a covert agent.    If so he would have been a logical choice to kill Kennedy.   The CIA might have hoped Oswald's apparent support for Cuban President Fidel Castro would cause public opinion to demand retaliation against Castro.   Oswald might have planned "to give into" expected intensive interrogation  and say the Cuban government had told him to shoot Kennedy.

I don't have any information that Oswald was or wasn't associated with the CIA.  Of course the CIA would never admit if he was with the CIA.   His previous flirtations with Russia and Cuba might have been efforts to gain information for the CIA.  The communists lack of interest in him could have indicated they were suspicious of his motives.

I have always been troubled by fact that someone with Oswald's background was allowed to be where he was on that fateful day.   The previous school year I had done a research paper on the Secret Service.  My research indicated that the Secret Service would normally have prevented someone like Oswald from being in a building along the motorcade route.

One fact that wasn't known to the public at the time was that one of the last actions taken by the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, was the killing of General George Patton.

I have no interest in pursuing this theory further  I'll leave that decision up to those who are more familiar with the incident than I am.

Is the United States a Democracy or a Police State?

In a democracy elected officials control the police..  In  a police state, the police can tell elected officials what to do.   In a democracy elected officials can fire police leaders.   In a police state police leaders cannot be fired by the officials the people have  elected to supposedly run the government.   

'In a police state Gestapo like police may terrorize political figures by invading their homes in the middle of the night like Robert Mueller did to .Paul J. Manafort.  In a police state KGB like police may plant spies in political organizations like the Department of Justice did to Donald Trump.

Those who talk about the rule of law sometimes forget the most important of our laws are devoted to preventing misuse of the police powers to  harass and intimidate political figures.  One of the most important of these protections is the requirement that those making accusations be identified so the accused can challenge the charges.   The accused may know that the accuser is likely to lie.   Basing an investigation of a political candidate on an anonymous source violates the spirit if not the letter of this constitutional protection.

The most important of our laws is the United States Constitution.  Article 2 of the United States Constitution states:  " The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

The Constitution does not allow sharing of power with the Attorney General, the FBI Director or any other law enforcement official.   Article 2 prohibits any law enforcement official from interrogating a president or trying to indict one.  Such an action would be equivalent to an attempt to overthrow the government.   Allowing the sharing of power would take away the people's power to control law enforcement,

Reducing Nicotine in Cigarettes Is an Extremely Bad Idea

The Food and Drug Administration's proposal  to gradually reduce nicotine levels in tobacco to discourage smoking is an extremely bad idea which won't help anyone and could hurt some.  Smoking may appear unattractive to non-smokers, but smokers may be doing what is best for someone with their genetic brain structure.

I have never had any connection to the tobacco industry.  I have never smoked, owned any tobacco company assets or worked in a facility that sold tobacco products.  People I cared about have died from medical conditions associated with tobacco use.

On a personal level I don't understand how people can enjoy smoking, but then smokers might not understand why I like jalapeno slices in my breakfast eggs. 

Unlike anti-tobacco fanatics I understand that differences in our brain genes can cause us to march  to the beats of different drummers.     One of the most important differences involves the  Dopamine Receptor gene DR4 which some call the risk taker gene because those with a certain form of the gene are more prone to risk taking.    Those with the risk taker form of the gene need a greater level of excitement possibly because they have more receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine.

The risk taker gene is essential in hunter / warrior societies because male members of the society must be willing to face danger to feed and protect other members of the society.   The risk taker gene may also affect decisions to move to another country or to the American frontier. .

The people who attempt to discourage young people from smoking don't recognize that their publicity campaign may actually be encouraging young risk takers to try smoking.  Potentially dangerous activities appeal to  those with the risk taker gene because doing something dangerous is exciting. Surviving  doing something dangerous provides a feeling of accomplishment.  Telling young risk takers that smoking is dangerous makes smoking an attractive activity.

Those with the risk taker gene are prone to alcoholism and drug addiction indicating they may need a chemical stimulation for their DR4 receptors.  Fortunately there is another chemical that can provide this stimulation.   Nicotine can provide an alternate chemical for at least some of those with the risk taker gene without the dangerous side effects of alcohol or drugs.   Users of alcohol or drugs can lose control of their behavior  Smokers retain control over their behavior.

The conventional view is that nicotine independently causes people to become addicted to it.    The reality might be more complicated.  Some people may have a need for special chemicals that have a certain impact on their well being.  We all are "addicted to" some chemicals such as vitamins.  It might be that people with the risk taker  gene have more specialized needs. 

This post is too short to provide definitive answers, but it could provide a guide for additional research into the possibility that for those with the risk taker gene smoking might be a beneficial activity.  The potential heath threat is less than the threat posed by a high fat diet or drinking and driving.    Smokers generally live long enough to retire   Incidentally, I recently saw an ad indicating some lawyers believe that many lung cancers blamed on smoking might actually be the result of asbestos exposure.  

 

  e

Mass Deporting of Dreamers and Other "Illegals" Would Help No One and Hurt Everybody

Mass deportations of Dreamers and other illegal immigrants would be irrational because it would involve substantial economic cost without providing any  economic benefit.   The closest thing to a benefit the action would provide is that it would provide some happiness to those psychological misfits who are  obsessed with obeying laws regardless of the consequences.  

 "Illegal" immigrants are fully integrated in the economy,    The economy is partly dependent on their spending.   If an epidemic or a military attack were to kill 10, million Americans the economic impact could be devastating.  The deportation  of a similar number of people would have the same effect.  The money they spend in retail businesses affects the number of employees those businesses can employ.    A reduction in consumer spending would force retailers to lay off people.  Manufacturers of consumer goods,  clothing and  highly processed foods would  have to cut production because of reduced demand.    Layoffs at these firms and by retailers would further reduce demand.  Local governments often depend on sales tax revenue that would fall if too many consumers were removed from the city.

Stock traders often over react to events that hurt businesses.  They often  act like a herd of nervous cattle and stampede if any thing threatens stock prices. When stock prices are high, traders begin to worry that prices are too high and they will jump at the first sign  of a price drop.  Obviously, traders would sell retail stocks if they knew retail sales would drop even if the anticipated drop would only be a few per cent.   Sellers would try to get the best price  possible, but if many wanted to sell,  there could be a shortage of buyers which would mean a major drop in price.

Government could set up a procedure to determine whether individual immigrants are worthy of  being allowed to stay.  As with any group of people, some illegal immigrants are having a positive impact  on our society and some are having a negative impact.  The federal government should encourage those who are having a positive impact to stay to help replace the 10,000 baby boomers who retire every day.

Congress should discourage those who have a negative impact by imposing a mandatory ten year jail sentence on those who come here illegally and engage in violence, theft or sale of drugs before deporting them.  Deporting them without a jail sentence would accomplish nothing because they would likely find a way to come back. 

Congress could set up a point system for evaluation of immigrants.  Those immigrants who are already here can be evaluated more easily than those who are still living in other countries  Emphasis should be on families because those adults with families are inclined to want a good place for their families to live  A family could earn points by being employed,  learning English and participating in religious or civic organizations. Public safety jobs such as military or fire fighting would provide extra points.   Children could earn points for the family by doing well in school including participating in  extracurricular activities such as sports or music. 
  
Many Americans have long believed that God helps the United States  Those  politicians who share this view should consider the possibility that God has helped the Dreamers and their families to avoid being caught and deported.  Perhaps God has placed the Dreamers here to replace the babies who have been aborted.

Taxpayers have been investing $10,600 per student per year to educate the dreamers so they can eventually replace retiring  workers.  Deporting Dreamers would throw away that investment.

There is a popular myth that those who don't pay an income tax don't pay taxes. Income tax is only one of the taxes Americans pay.  Those who are living in or visiting America pay visible taxes such as sales taxes along with hidden taxes   Business owners sometimes point out that businesses don't  pay taxes  Their customers do  The money a business pays in taxes ultimately comes from customers. The money employees  pay in taxes also comes from customers   Many of the customers who  provide the money to cover business and employee taxes are here illegally.

Firing of Corrupt FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Long Overdue

2015 Hillary Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe helped finance the unsuccessful state senate campaign of Andrew McCabe's wife.   After the election  FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe took over an investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mishandling of official emails  and not surprisingly decided that Clinton hadn't done anything illegal.   McCabe also  pushed the stupid anti- Russia witch hunt which is actually helping Russia by discrediting American presidential elections

Is Robert Mueller Doing What President Putin Wants Done?

Is Robert Mueller Doing What President Putin Wants Done?

I've never given any serious consideration to the ridiculous claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin coordinated actions with Donald Trump's organization to help Trump win the election.    The scenario that proponents of this fantasy describe sounds too much like a possible plot for a Leslie Nielsen or Don Adams comedy spy movie.

Putin was with the KGB.   There is no way he would have conducted such an amateurish operation if he had wanted to help Donald Trump win.  He would not have had anyone who could have been   identified as being associated with the Russian government contact  the Trump campaign to coordinate activities.

I doubt that Putin would  have wanted a strong willed leader like Trump running the United State.     However, Putin might have had Russians contact members of Trump's organization in the hopes stupid Americans would misinterpret the actions as involving Russian assistance to Trump and then possibly try to oust Trump.    

Putin is likely aware of how much the assault on President Richard Nixon benefited the old Soviet Union.  The removal of Nixon weakened the United States and created opportunities for the Soviet Union and its allies.   North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.    Iraniian students overthrew the U.S. backed Shah of Iran and invaded the American embassy  The Soviet Union then was able to develop a relationship with the former U. S. ally.  

If what Putin would likely call the "American secret police"   overthrows Trump,  Putin could claim the action means the United States presidential elections are a farce   He would say if Americans don't vote or someone the secret police approve of the secret police will remove him."