Major Russian Espionage Involving Obama's DOJ

The  following is a repost of a discussion about what the Russian hackers were really doing in 2016.

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.

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.

The British Are Meddling! The British Are Meddling!

It's increasingly obvious that it's the British, rather than the Russians, who are meddling in American politics.    The British are once again using "fake intelligence" to influence American politics.

After the 9/11  attack the British used fake intelligence about WMD in Iraq to get President George W. Bush to help them invade Iraq.   The British treated rumors about WMD as if they were proven facts.

Now they are using fake intelligence to undermine President Donald Trump.     Patrick Cockburn in the "London Independent"   says the charges about Trump's alleged association with the Russians are based on information that is at least as unreliable as the claims about Iraq's WMD.

The British may be trying to oust Trump because they know they cannot manipulate him the way they manipulated George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  They used fake intelligence to get Bush's help in invading Iraq.  I don't know how they tricked Obama into helping them invade Libya.  This century is only about 18 years old and the British have already gotten us into two stupid wars.  We need to keep the British from using their boy Robby Mueller to force Trump out of office.

Did Pres. Obama and CIA Help Donald Trump Win?

News stories about purported Russian hacking in the presidential election continue to omit a very important fact.  The Russian government has arrested four of the hackers, including Col.Sergei Mikhailov, and charged them with working for  the CIA.

Thus if Russians did any election  hacking it was with the knowledge and consent of the CIA and President Barack Obama.    The knowledge received would have allowed the Obama administration to prevent any action that could have affected the outcome of the election.    If the president knew terrorists threatened to attack, he would assign federal agents to protect those who might be attacked.  Wouldn't a president who thought foreign government hackers threatened an organization assign government computer experts to protect against the attack? 

If the hackers tried to help Donald Trump win, it was because someone in the Obama administration wanted Trump to win.  It seems unlikely the CIA would have tried  to help Trump win without Obama's approval.   Incidentally with an FSB colonel on the CIA's  payroll it would have been easy  to have Russians meet with Trump's  associates where  the meetings  would be noticed.  [The FSB is the successor to the KGB.]

Why would Barack Obama want Donald Trump to win the election?  Perhaps Obama thought if Trump won, it might be possible to convince Congress to change the Constitution to allow Obama to seek a third term in 2020, particularly if Congress thought Trump was involved with the Russians.  That strategy wouldn't have been possible if Hillary Clinton had won.

 I doubt the claim that Russian hackers did anything that affected the outcome of the election. even if they tried to do  so.     However, if they did then any federal investigation  should ask what did the CIA and President Barack Obama know, when did they know it and what did they do with the knowledge?  If CIA officials didn't tell Obama about the Russians, why didn't they?

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.

Is Obama Immigration Plan a Trap?

People who are in the United States illegally need to realize that President Barack Obama's immigration proposal [even if he is sincere] could a trap.  People who identify themselves to the government could be the first to be deported if Republicans can  get the courts to invalidate the plan or a Republican is elected president in 2016.  Those who are living in the United States illegally need to "stay in the shadows" until they can be guaranteed amnesty if they "come out of the shadows".

President Obama may mean well with his proposal, but,  considering his recent security problems, illegal immigrants can't be sure something bad won't happen to him before there is actual approval of an amnesty plan.   Considering how passionately some people have been on the immigration issue, Obama's action may increase the likelihood that some crackpot will try to attack him.

 Another potential problem is that his unilateral action may anger enough Congressional Republicans to reduce the potential for Congressional action.

There certainly will be one or more attempts to have the courts invalidate the plan.    With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress there could be a revival of the birth certificate issue that would force Obama to produce his real birth certificate or at least a better forgery than the last one.   The last "birth certificate" Obama posted on line was an obvious forgery because it listed his father's race as "African".   The word "African" cannot be used for race because two different so called races live in Africa:  a dark skinned "race" south of the Sahara and a lighted skinned "race" north of the Sahara that is considered "white".   If Republicans could proved Obama is qualified to be president than any immigration proposal he made would be invalid.  

A moratorium on deportation of otherwise law abiding immigrants is appropriate while there is a possibility of immigration reform.  It would be unfair to deport some family just before action that would allow them to remain here legally.

Tired of Whining Homosexuals

 I feel sorry for homosexuals because they are afflicted with a birth defect they seem unable to understand.  However, I'm tired of them and their supporters harassing those who don't accept their peculiar social views.

A growing body of scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born with the brain of one sex and the body  of the other.     A homosexual male's brain is similar to a heterosexual female's brain.  A  homosexual female's brain is similar to a heterosexual male's brain.  In other words the people who think they are homosexuals are really transsexuals.  Thus, homosexuality might be treatable with a sex change operation.

New York City and Boston homosexuals recently got upset because the organizers of the St. Patrick Day parades in those cities wouldn't let homosexuals convert the  parades into events celebrating homosexuality.  If homosexuals want to celebrate their condition, they should conduct their own parades instead on trying to hijack other people's parades.  I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on "gay pride" is designed to convince us they are happy with their condition, or to convince themselves.

A few months ago the poor little things got all upset because one of the "Duck Dynasty" stars said homosexual behavior was morally wrong.  They wanted him to be fired.    If people could claim that those of us who were serving our country in Vietnam were doing something morally wrong, then people should be able to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong.   Many religions call homosexual behavior a sin.

I wonder if the reason some homosexuals  get upset when people say they are doing something wrong is because they feel guilty about being homosexual.   People who believe what they are doing is right don't worry about "misguided" people who say what they are doing is wrong.  I didn't listen to those who claimed my participation in the Vietnam War was wrong. 

Christianity defines many behaviors, in addition to homosexuality,  as sinful/   America's favorite sin is gluttony -- eating too much.  Many people don't realize that neglecting the poor is a sin.  According to Ezekiel 16:49  “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."   

Cry babies at Mozilla recently pressured newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich into resigning because he didn't support the childish idea of same sex marriage.  The term "marriage" refers to the human mating practice in \which one member of each sex unites to form a unit that contains a complete set of human sexual traits.  Traditionally the goal was to produce children, but not as many people are interested in being parents today.

Marriage allows heterosexuals to gain a feeling of completeness by joining with someone who possesses the characteristics of the opposite sex.  A husband may refer to his wife as his "better half".  A wife may call her husband her "other half".
\
No state prevents homosexuals from participating in a marriage to  a member of the other sex.   But, homosexuals don't want to attempt the difficult task of having a relationship with someone who is different from them.  Homosexuals want to treat a simple relationship with someone who is the same as them as if it were the same as a relationship with someone who is physiologically and psychologically different..    

Homosexuals who want to pretend their relationships are "marriages" remind me of little girls playing house.  If they cannot find a boy willing to play the daddy one of the girls will play daddy.  

Homosexuals who want to play like their relationships are marriages are implying they don't want to be homosexual.  They want to copy a heterosexual relationship because they would prefer to be normal heterosexuals.  They don't  understand that they can become heterosexual by having an operation to put their bodies on the same sexual page as their brains.

Newsweek in a May, 2012, cover article dubbed Barack Obama the "First Gay President".     WND says in an article based on confidential interviews of members of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama is a member that Obama is "Down Low" as many black male homosexuals refer to themselves.  Those who are Down Low keep a low profile and marry women, some times without telling them about their homosexuality.   I mention this claim because WND isn't the only source of claims that Obama is homosexual and because online sources have often revealed activities or statements by politicians well ahead of the mainstream media.  Amazon even carries a book dealing with an alleged homosexual affair Obama had.   The American people deserve to know if Obama is supporting homosexual causes because he is one. 

On the other hand, considering Obama's support for homosexuals on various political issues, wouldn't he admit it if he is homosexual? The WND article states that Obama's pastor arranged marriages between homosexual men and women who were having trouble finding husbands, but  Michelle.doesn't look like a woman who would have trouble finding a husband.  Obviously Obama doesn't consider homosexual behavior to be wrong.   Knowing that the President of the United States is homosexual would provide a major boost to homosexuals and would encourage those who are "Down Low"  to publicly acknowledge their condition.   Maybe he needs some encouragement from homosexuals to come out of the closet.   Maybe the mainstream media could help resolve the issue by investigating it.  

Barack "Don Quixote" Obama

I had a dream last night in which Barack Obama was wearing a helmet and carrying a lance like the fictional character Don Quixote  who had a reputation for attacking make believe foes.   The only other clothing Obama
had on was swimming trunks.  He was riding a horse that had a remarkable resemblance to John Kerry

As he moved his lance up and down  he was chanting:  "we must stop global warming." He continued to chant as the reading on the thermometer dropped below freezing and he began turning blue.

He continued chanting "we must stop global warming" as the snow began to fall.  Soon the snow was up to his knees with his horse unable to move, but he continued to chant "we must stop global warning" until the snow covered him and his horse.

Obama's comments on non-existent global warming this winter  demonstrates how he is increasingly out of touch with reality.  Obama talked about global warming in a State of the Union speech delivered on a night when the Gulf Coast was preparing to deal with freezing temperatures.  He urged businesses to switch to natural gas at a time when natural gas companies were asking for rate increases because the cold weather was creating a shortage of gas.

Obama wants to spend $1billion dealing with non-existent global warming at a time when cities are trying to find money to pay the costs of a snow filled winter.

Obama has continued to push his global warming nonsense through his Secretary of State John Kerry.

A rational president would have omitted mention of the global warming issue during a severe cold spell because he would have recognized that people who were worried about their cars slip sliding off the road aren't going to believe talk about global warming.  But then a rational president would understand that the claim that CO2 causes something called global warming is  nonsense.  The claim is based on a 19th Century myth that greenhouses and the atmosphere are heated by trapping infrared radiation.  Physicist R. W. Wood disproved this claim in 1909. 

Law enforcement personnel will tell you that if a financial opportunity sounds too good to be true, it's probably a scam.   With political scams the reverse is true.  Politicians will make the situation sound much worse than it is.  For example,  President George W. Bush insisted we had to invade Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein from giving Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda.  The fact is that there is no way a paranoid dictator like Hussein would have given WMD to an organization that might want to take his job.   The people pushing the global warming hysteria are claiming all sorts of unbelievable calamities will occur.  

Obama is also out of touch with reality in the Ukrainian crisis.  His criticism of Russia is questionable   He calls the Ukraine a democracy even though the current change in government control occurred as the result of protests rather than election.  The pro European Union group took control after members of the president's party were scared into changing sides or leaving.   What is left of the government may not be sufficient to qualify as a viable national government of the ethnically divided country. 

 Crimea is an autonomous republic within the Ukraine with a mostly Russian population.   Only 28% of the population is ethnic Ukrainian.   Reestablishing a stable government in the Ukraine will be more difficult if ethnic Russians are forced to be part of a nation where they don't feel they belong.  Thus it would make more sense for the republic to become part of Russia then remain part of the Ukraine.   Russia is attempting to stabilize an unstable political situation and prevent a civil war.  Obama doesn't understand that President Vladimir Putin  isn't going to destroy the government and then let the country descend into chaos like Obama did in Libya.

Obama seems oblivious to the possibility that calling attention to a nation in which protestors forced a president to resign might encourage his opponents to try to use protests to push him into resigning.  His support for those who used protests to change the government indicates he considers that approach an acceptable alternative to elections.

The 25th Amendment to the Constitution who is physically or mentally unable to handle the duties of President.   The vice president and members of the cabinet can temporarily relieve a president who has lost touch with reality.   The presidency is a high stress job and high stress can cause mental and physical problems including high blood pressure and heart disease.   Many historians . believe that the stress of dealing with political scandals killed President Warren G. Harding.  
 

S & P's Decision Appears Justified

Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating appears justified because of the inadequacy of the U.S. response to the debt issue. Allowing the U.S. to keep the top rating would falsely indicate the U.S. is doing the best it can to correct its debt problem. American voters are choosing politicians who lack the ability or willingness to deal realistically with the U.S. debt problem.

I waited to write about Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating because I wanted to think about it for awhile instead of taking a knee jerk reaction.

Dealing with a major crisis requires a strong experienced president. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is the weakest president since Gerald Ford. Obama's only apparent skill is an ability to read a teleprompter.

A smart president would have recognized he couldn't change the minds of House members and ended the debate early so he could prepare for a return match later.

Obama won the election because neither the voters nor the media understand the qualifications for an effective president. The President is the chief executive officer of the most powerful country in the world. Electing an president without executive experience makes no more sense then asking a high school quarterback to play quarterback in the Super Bowl.

Too many voters will support someone who promises to do "this, that and the other thing" even though the candidate has never demonstrated an ability to deliver on his promises. It's easy to make promises, but delivering on those promises can be difficult. Any quarterback can say he will win the Super Bowl, but very few are capable of doing so.

Unfortunately, many Republicans want to make the same mistake the Democrats did. These Republicans support Michele Bachmann who is just as inexperienced and unprepared for the presidency as Obama was.

The deficit debate was what we used to call the game of chicken. Two cars would approach each other in the same lane. The driver who veered off first was "chicken". Both sides seemed more interested in scoring political points than in conducting a serious discussion of the issue. They reminded me of the old beer commercials in which one side yelled "less filling" and the other side yelled "great taste".

One editorial cartoonist suggested the old Looney Tunes cartoon debate in which Daffy Duck says "Rabbit Season" and Bugs Bunny says "Duck Season". Bugs eventually gets Daffy to say "Duck Season", but Obama doesn't have Bugs Bunny's ability.

Too many members of Congress are either incapable of understanding the nature of the deficit crisis or don't care about dealing with the deficit in a realistic manner. Fixing the deficit will require an increase in revenue, preferably a tax on those with surplus income.

Cutting spending won't reduce the deficit as much as some expect because the federal government gets a kickback in the form of Social Security and income taxes from those it employs or from businesses government, and its employees, purchases from. Money given to welfare recipients goes to those they purchase goods and services from who in turn pay taxes.

If unemployment increases due to spending cuts, the next Congress may feel it needs to spend even more borrowed money to stimulate the economy.

Republicans and their supporters seem incapable of understanding the fact that it is not the amount of money someone has, but the financial status of the United States that is important. The financial health of the U.S. determines what its money is worth. For the rich, taxes are an investment in the financial health of the United States. Reducing the deficit would improve the financial health of the U.S. and make the money the rich have worth more.

There is a danger if the "rich" have too much money. Money can be addictive. As people obtain a certain amount of money they start wanting more and more. Like alcoholics they need more and more money to be satisfied.

When the "rich" obtain too much money a boom psychology can develop in which investors ignore the possibility of risk. They don't think they can lose money. They may think the stock market can only go up as many believed in the 20's.

The crisis of 2008 occurred because the rich had too much money and had bid stock prices up too high because too many expected everything to go up "forever". Many invested money in garbage like mortgage derivatives or gave it to crooks like Bernie Madoff who promised to make them even richer. If they had invested it in taxes, the country's financial health would be better today and many of them wouldn't have lost so much.

Talk about defaulting on debts incurred in the past raises concerns that the U.S. might default on newer debts. Those who started working 40 some years ago were told the Social Security taxes they were paying were for a pension program. They were loaning money to the federal government in return for a promise to provide them with retirement income. Congress may have handled Social Security funds like the program was a Ponzi scheme, but "investors" (Social Security taxpayers) were told they were investing in a pension plan.

Social Security and Medicare are debts, not entitlements. Benefits go to those who have paid in advance for them.

If the current Congress decides to default on the promise of Social Security payments to those who will be retiring in the next few years because the program was poorly administered by previous Congresses, how can those who purchase U.S. government securities today be sure that a future Congress won't decide to default on that debt because Congress in 2011 was not borrowing responsibly.

Obama's Silly Conspiracy Theory

President Barack Obama suffers from the delusion that there must have been some massive conspiracy to hide Osama bin Laden from the U.S.

President Barack Obama apparently thinks that the fact that he needed an army of attorneys to keep his stupid birth certificate secret means that bin Laden must have had a large group helping him stay hidden. Or, maybe Obama doesn't believe that an Arab could be smart enough to hide from the U.S. without help, even an Arab smart enough to be responsible for the 9/11 attack. .

Obama should know better because the CIA has already said that the most any of the al Qaeda members they captured knew was that there was some mysterious courier who might have direct access to bin Laden. If bin Laden didn't trust members of his own organization with his hiding place, why would he trust Pakistani government agencies which he certainly was aware could have been infiltrated by agents working for the CIA or other intelligence agencies particularly Mossad (Israel) and MI6 (Britain) .

There is a claim that India's RAW and Mossad have combined efforts to infiltrate Pakistan government agencies. Even if a foreign agent didn't learn where he was hiding, someone in the government might have found the $25 million reward too tempting to pass up.

Any ability al Qaeda might have to obtain inside information from Pakistani agencies would not be the same as those agencies helping al Qaeda anymore than an ability to obtain inside information from American agencies would indicate those agencies were helping al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda likely has agents planted in governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as on some NATO bases in Afghanistan, much like the Viet Cong had agents planted in the South Vietnamese government and on American bases during the Vietnam War. If al Queda/Taliban can plant potential suicide bombers on American base they can plant spies. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong often had radios capable of eavesdropping on American radio traffic.

The Wikileaks situation demonstrates that the Obama administration has poor information security. The administration has alleged that an army PFC in Iraq was able to place documents on the web he should not have been able to access. The leaking of the fact that the U.S. was attempting to track bin Laden's cell phone in 2001 came from Americans rather than Pakistanis.

If Pakistani agencies were supposedly helping bin Laden stay hidden what were they doing while the SEALS were at his compound. Military or intelligence officials would have been aware of the possibility of Americans coming in by helicopter.

Why wasn't the compound surrounded by command detonated mines in case that happened? Why wasn't someone in a protected position with a weapon capable of disabling a helicopter? Why, in a military area well inside Pakistan, didn't his "protectors" call for a force to keep the Americans from leaving?

The ease with which the SEALS got in and out indicates that bin Laden had no support from individuals in the Pakistan government. If Pakistan's forces were involved their role was to allow the Americans to leave without interference while pretending to be unaware of what was happening.

Obama cannot understand the obvious fact that the best way to keep something secret is to limit the number of people who know the secret. If you had a $25 million buried treasure that you didn't want someone else to dig up, you wouldn't tell anyone you had any doubts about, particularly strangers in a government agency.

Many fiction writers recognize that keeping locations secret involves limiting who knows the location. On the old "Batman" tv series even Batgirl and the police commissioner didn't know the location of the bat cave. Limiting who knows a secret hideout reduces the chances of someone inadvertently revealing the location or revealing the location under torture. One way to get someone to reveal a hideout is to trick him into going to the hideout while he's being followed.

Bin Laden's choice of a hiding place was brilliant. The last place anyone would expect to find him would be in an area away from his supporters. Living in a mansion sized compound would create the impression that the occupant was wealthy, possibly with a fear of being robbed or kidnapped, or someone involved with drugs or smuggling.

The presence of cannabis plants in the area would be consistent with a drug dealer as the resident of the compound. The media have referred to the plants as marijuana, but they were more likely being grown for production of hashish which has been used in the Middle East for centuries. Marco Polo and others suggested it was used by members of the Medieval Order of Assassins from which al Qaeda is descended.

Osama bin Laden probably wasn't familiar with American masked avengers but his choice of accommodations is similar to Batman and Zorro. When Batman wasn't running around catching criminals he was the liberal wealthy philanthropist Bruce Wayne. When Zorro wasn't riding around carving a "Z" with his sword he was wealthy foppish Don Diego de la Vega.

Mr. O'Bombers' War

Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.

Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.

Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.

Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.

Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.

China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?

I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.

If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?

If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"

The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.

Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.

Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.

Obama and the Third Bush Administration

They told me in 2008 that if I voted for Sen. John McCain we would get the third Bush administration. They were right. I voted for McCain and now we have the third Bush administration under Barack Obama.

Obama continued bailouts, stimulus payments, high deficits and presidential vacations. He convinced Congress to continue all the Bush tax cuts.

Obama is carrying on Bush's efforts to weaken the Social Security system by reducing Social Security taxes in spite of the fact that many have had to delay retirement because the economic collapse damaged their private pension programs. If Obama were a real Democrat, he would want to strengthen Social Security.

The health care program Obama conned the Democratic Congress into approving apparently originated in the administration of the first President Bush. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney enacted a similar program in Massachusetts.

Some Republicans refer to other Republicans as "RINOs" for Republicans In Name Only. It appears that President Barack Obama could be a "DINO" or a Democrat In Name Only.

Maybe it's time for Democrats to ask for that birth certificate.

"Change We Can Believe In" Is Gibberish

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a nonsense phrase. It has no real meaning.

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't make any sense to believe in "change"? I can see believing in religion or love or maybe even music, but believing in "change" makes no sense. It might make sense to believe in Sen. John McCain's ability to handle the presidency, but believing in some vaguely defined change is ridiculous.

Bill Clinton suggested "It's time to change America" when he ran in 1992. I don't recall him changing much of anything, although two years later voters changed Congress by replacing many Democrats with Republicans.

The slogan "Change We Can Believe In" sounds like something a child might consider impressive, but it has no real meaing. Not surprisingly, Obama has more appeal to inexperienced young voters than to wiser older voters who have seen a lot of fast talking phony politicians.

Obama a few months ago commented about the psychological state of small town people who believed in religion, etc. What is the psychological state of people who believe in some vaguely defined "change"?

Obama's supporters must have very empty lives to believe that some vague "change" is going to make their lives better. Do they expect the president to provide them some type of psychological satisfaction?

The term sounds like it might be some type of code word that Obama and his supporters understand, but whose meaning is supposed to be unknown to others.

As an historian I am inherently suspicious of politicians who rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level. Southern populists like Huey Long and George Wallace used such emotional oratory to succeed. Adolph Hitler was a master of the technique.

I am also suspicious of politicians who use vague code words. Politicians sometimes use code words and phrases to cover up what they are doing. For example, white southern politicians used the phrase "states' rights" to convince people outside the south that southern whites should be allowed to mistreat black American citizens. Southerns whites argued they were attempting to "preserve their way of life" without mentioning that their way of life involved rape and murder of black residents.

How can we be sure the that Barack Obama is not talking about a "change" designed to reduce the level of democracy in the United States? What guarantee do his supporters have that "change" is just a con to get them to vote for a candidates who doesn't have the necessary management experience to run one of Donald Trump's small companies?

Editor Wants Rev. Wright to Shut Up

The editor of the Hutchinson (Kansas) News says "Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up" in an April 30 editorial.

Barack Obama's supporters in the media are piling on Rev. Wright for having the audacity to speak his mind and possibly harm their candidate's chances of being elected president.

Forgive my cynicism, but they are ignoring the fact that Obama made Wright a public figure by using Wright's church to try to convince black voters to vote for him. Politicians have been using church membership to win votes for generations.

I can understand criticizing Wright for his statements about government being responsible for the HIV virus, but why do some like the New York Times( April 30) criticize him for his statement that the 9/11 attack was punishment for various American actions abroad which killed innocent civilians. Religious leaders have been blaming calamities on "sin" since biblical times.

I have read the sermon in question and see nothing wrong with it. As a social scientist I look at human actions in terms of direct cause and effect actions.

I would explain 9/11 in terms of the reaction of al Qaeda to having our troops stationed in their Holy Land and the failure of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs and prevent the attack. The FBI had a man in custody who wanted to learn how to fly planes but not how to land them, but no one at the FBI could foresee the obvious possibility that someone was planning to hijack a plane or planes and deliberately crash them. To me the 9/11 attack occurred because of incompetence at the FBI and CIA.

Preachers look at events from the view point of moral issues of right and wrong. Positive consequences are rewards for doing right. Negative consequences are the punishment for doing wrong. Like the prophets of biblical times Rev. Wright looked at the wrongs he felt America had done and suggested punishment was understandable.

Those who condemn Rev. Wright for his statement about 9/11 reveal themselves as anti religious bigots. They are the ones who should shut up.

In Defense of Mr. Wright

I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs.

My father believed the rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe in World War II. I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.

I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.

America has a long tradition of belief in conspiracies. Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers. I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.

Wright's statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times. Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins. I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King's statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that he had a duty to speak out against what he believed to be wrong.

One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong. If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom, we must allow them to continue to do so even if we disagree with them.

If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama not Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.

Obama's behavior is scary in someone who wants to be president. Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency. A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he's elected.

Rev. Wright's statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense.

For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere. They believe this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments. They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature. Such a small change could indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.

Has Obama Broken the Law?

I'm not an expert on Senate rules regulating campaign activities. I would like to know if it is legal for a Senator to use his Senate website to further his presidential campaign. Barack Obama has decided to use his Senate website to help his presidential campaign by posting information about the earmarks he has requested as a Senator.

If tax money is used to fund Senate website activities than Obama's action is unethical because it forces taxpayers to subsidize his presidential campaign. The appropriate place to post the list would have been Obama's presidential website.

His disclosure indicates further unethical activity by requesting money for the Chicago Medical Center which increased his wife's salary by nearly $200,000 after he was elected to the Senate . Is this earmark request a payback for a bribe? His supporters have also potentially benefited from his earmark requests.

The Senate, or a federal grand jury, needs to investigate this possibility. This question needs to be resolved before Democrats decide whether to nominate Obama as their presidential candidate. If they cannot resolve the legal issues first they may once again have a candidate running for office with a special prosecutor breathing down his neck.

Ignorance of the Presidency

Many Americans seem ignorant about what the job of President of the United States involves. The debate over who to nominate largely ignores the fact that the President is the nation's Chief Executive Officer.

Democrats are preoccupied with the color or sex of their candidates. Many Republicans are preoccupied with which candidate is "conservative" enough.

Too little attention has been paid to who has the most relevant experience to be an executive. Democrats had the candidate with the best resume, Gov. Bill Richardson, but they have rejected him in favor of media stars Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who have never run any large organization. We can evaluate Richardson on the basis of how he ran the Department or Energy or how effective he has been as a governor.

Republicans at least considered experienced executives, even if they devoted more attention to their ideological views. We can evaluate John McCain on how he ran the Navy fighter wing he was in charge of. Governors Mitt Rommey and Mike Huckabee could be evaluated on how they handled their governorships.

Ignorant voters blindly assume that a candidate who agrees with them will be able to implement policies they support. The reality is that even the most well meaning candidate cannot automatically gain support for his or her proposals. Gaining approval for an agenda requires experience.