Are police actually the greatest protector of Black lives?

It was during a segment of the nationally televised Town Hall discussion between president Obama and American citizens that Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn made this incredibly bold statement. I thought he made the case quite passionately, articulately, and convincingly; at least, as it seemed to me. Although president Obama seemed to struggle with his answers as he went through his encyclopedic reasoning, and seems to get bogged down in his own thinking and then when he does answer a question it seems that the question and questioner seems to get lost in all of the carefully worded response; which is understandable in light of the recent events of the past couple of weeks. Chief Flynn, on the other hand, while defending Black Lives Matter and the experience of people of color within the context of this nation’s past historical narrative, nevertheless chided the movement for not being more vocal in denunciating Black on Black crime in the African-American community.

During the unexpectedly long discourse he made the bold statement that the police are the greatest protector of Black lives, and the Calvary is not going to come rushing over the hill [to save them/Blacks] because there is no one else. That was a poignant moment that resonated with me, and I wonder if the moment was lost on the audience and the viewers watching at home .or on their mobile devices. And it’s like in the movie, Ghostbusters, which invokes the phrase, “Who [else] you gonna call?” I mean, if the racist police are the enemy and if Black lives are not important or valued, then why call 911 emergency when a dangerous situation is imminent or crime occurs or is about to occur? Why not organize local community or block watch groups and patrol the neighborhood as well as provide security for the residents? And as a last point, during the shooting melee in Dallas by Micah Johnson at the Black Lives Matter demonstration, White [and other] police officers braved the hail of bullets, placing themselves in the line of fire to shield the attendees, including children, with their own bodies. Five officers gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect and keep others safe, minimizing further casualties. So, the Dallas police didn’t scatter and run for cover but by their actions they proved, without saying a word or carrying a sign, placard, or poster that ‘Black Lives’ as well as all lives matter, too.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 16, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

The paradox of law enforcement

In Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Ed.), the word paradox is defined as a (noun) c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions from acceptable premises. So, with that understanding I think this a good place to begin with, because the results derived from combatting crime proves this very point. There are those get tough on crime proponents in society who advocate hiring more police officers but there aren’t any statistical data or studies that I am aware of which prove that this approach results in lower crime rates. This may sound convincing on the surface of it, and there might even be a correlation to substantiate lower incidents or reports of crime, but that is not the same as causation. The only thing hiring more police officers do is that it means there are more of them to dispatch to a criminal incident or threat, which is reactive; not proactive.

The way to deter or prevent crime is to address the conditions or environmental factors that provide the fertile ground from which these behaviors sprout. The favorite talking points of politicians of “get tough on crime” or policy makers in the legislative, as well as administrative branches of state and local government do not fully understand, or choose to ignore the problem in favor of other considerations. For instance, instead of hiring a police officer and paying an annual salary of $50,000 why not take that same money and put it to better use in the community for job training, technical education, mental health services, and other needed programs? The new ‘paradigm’ should not be more police or boots on the ground, but rather, more books and other educational materials to help someone pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Let’s help create a society that moves away from the approach derived from the Old Europe of medieval times to one of positivity and self-actualization.  As it pertains to the old ways, when the guillotine was introduced in Europe crime rates actually went up, not down; as one might would have expected.

Enforcement is not prevention nor is it a viable strategy and it is counterproductive as it is presently implemented, Crime will only be deterred and reduced, though not totally eliminated, when the conditions and socio-cultural factors that inhibit lawful behavior are significantly minimized and alternatives and incentives are provided that reward self-empowerment toward achieving positive outcomes which benefit the person and society as a whole.  More importantly, it is time to take the profit motive from prosecuting criminal behavior that benefits the courts and the prison industrial complex; of which the latter earns billions of dollars annually in operational revenues and serves the financial interests of vendors and suppliers who provides services to them.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 15, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Weeping in Dallas: The Hate that hate produced

The shooting deaths of five Dallas, Texas police officers by Micah Johnson has produced such raw emotions that it is difficult for most Americans to fully process. President Barack Obama is scheduled to address in a town hall meeting moderated by David Muir of ABC News that will be broadcast live as well as simultaneously live-streamed online starting at 5PM PST. The president will answer questions from the audience and once again start a national conversation about race. This time however it will be different because it will come on the wake of five slain police officers and a Black man specifically looking to kill White police officers (or White people in general??). This tragic event happened during a peaceful demonstration by Black Lives Matter participants whom, as some Whites recently, like former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani have labeled as ‘racist.’ The motivation for the ambush of law enforcement officials is in retaliation for the number of Black men killed by White police officers, and the latest victims being   Alton Sterling of Louisiana and Philandro Castile of Minnesota.

No one can specifically answer the question why the Black communities (esp. Black males) are the target of aggressive policing by law enforcement, and disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system as prison inmates, in juvenile detention, or on felony probation in comparison to any other ethnic or racial group. Why is this so; what is White America so afraid of; why are Blacks such a threat to society? There are published studies by some social scientists suggesting that African-Americans have an inherent “pathology” towards violence and anti-social tendencies. This is patently nonsense, insulting, intellectually dishonest, and it condemns a race of people as nothing more than uncivilized, untamed, wild animals, or at the very least, subhuman. I have another opinion that I would like to offer instead. Oprah Winfrey used to talk about the “new normal” in America after 911, and she was right; but in ways that she couldn’t even imagine. One of the things that was warned about in past generations as far as predicting the future was that this country would evolve into a “police state” with almost unchecked power from law enforcement officials. The terrorist attack on America and the Twin Towers in flames along with the loss of over 3,200 American civilians was the breakout moment in this nation’s history. First responders (fire fighters and police) who risked their lives to save people trapped beneath the rubble, twisted girders, broken glass, and toxic dust became heroes; not just nationally but internationally. They were lauded, and rightly so, with honors and praises befitting the heroes of Greek mythology- like Odysseus, Perseus, Hercules, Achilles, Agamemnon, and others. This also meant, however, that they could do no wrong; at least in the eyes of the public (their worshippers).

Now, let’s take a step back and try to look for some perspective. Since 911 there has been a radical change of attitude and tactics in law enforcement when it pertains to crime prevention; which by the way, had been coming for some time but at a more gradual pace. The approach of community policing (‘Protect and Serve”) of the past has been replaced by military tactics in urban warfare against criminals, much like soldiers fighting enemy combatants in the Middle East (Iraq & Afghanistan). In fact, the growing ranks of police are filled by veterans of the War on Terror, who have served several tours of duty or many wannabees who were somehow disqualified for military service- just saying.  A lot of inner city, urban neighborhoods probably looks like they could be in a war-torn, ravaged and blighted, Third World country. Police patrols ant traffic stops seem like checkpoints by Israeli military from the Palestinian side into the territory of state of Israel in eastern Jerusalem. For all intents and purposes African-Americans might as well be Palestinians because for many, they don’t seem to be treated any better. Just as disaffected Palestinians retaliate the best way they can against what they see as injustice from the government policies and aggressive Israeli military in the beloved land of Israel, then sooner or later frustration boils over into violent reprisals from African-Americans who feel such neglect, despair, and hopelessness.

This reaction does not justify what was done in Dallas or what might be done in the future; nor does it answer the problem but it may help explain it a little. Now, having said all of this I want to wrap things up with a look forward and where to go from here. The “eye for an eye” approach is no solution and all it does is continue the non-ending karmic cycle of violence. Personally, it would not come as a surprise to me that a lot of police officers suffer from PTSD, and I wonder if it has ever been suggested or investigated; and if so it must have been swept under the rug because I haven’t heard anything about it. Anyway, I think probably 9.5 out of 10 police officers bravely serve with honor and distinction; irrespective of the race, religion, ethnic identity, and any other differences in the people they come in contact with. Having said this, there are bad cops and they have to be fired just like there are soldiers who are unfit to wear the uniform and faithfully carry out their duties in violation of the military code of conduct (UCMJ). Just as these individuals are dishonorably discharged from military service, police officers who fail to carry out their jobs to safeguard the public trust without prejudice, then these officers are a disgrace and dishonor the badge/shield they wear, the institution, and their fellow officers.

These men and women have sworn a public oath and are bound by law to that commitment and any violation of such is punishable by law. It is also important for those in the Black community to give the police the benefit of the doubt (initially), like innocent until proven guilty; but I don’t like that last part because it implies “guilt”- you just have to wait long enough until it is revealed or becomes self-evident. There can and must be cooperation between these two camps and I think what they have in common is in the area of, pardon the vernacular, “snitch-bitch.” The Black community doesn’t like anyone to inform on the group to outsiders and the police department doesn’t like to single out ‘rogue’ cops but this practice has to stop if we are going to ever make progress in race relations. It is inherent in every group to want to protect its members but sometimes we have to step outside the box and draw up another paradigm-one that will keep us true to our values and yet at the same time purge the harmful and destructive elements from us. This can be done and it will not happen overnight, but this is America and anything that the people of this country really want to do, nothing can stop us from getting it done.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 13, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg takes on Donald Trump

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, the feisty octogenarian Supreme Court Justice, in an unprecedented breach of protocol and tradition, made unflattering remarks about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. “The Donald” who has never met a criticism that he didn’t like and take personally, In true form Donald Trump tweeted, "Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!" The thing is, though, Justice Ginsberg has every right as a citizen to say whatever she wants as long as it doesn’t involve any legal situation before the Court that involves Donald Trump. Besides, didn’t the late Justice Scalia make comments about persons or policies he was in disagreement with? Donald Trump is so predictable and behaves like a kid in a kindergarten playground reacting to being picked on or teased by other children than a man who might one day sit in the Oval Office. Elizabeth Warren calls Donald Trump “insecure” and Hillary Clinton echoed the same thing during one of her rallies by saying that Trump doesn’t have the “temperament” to be president. She went on to say that Donald Trump is someone that cannot be entrusted with the nuclear launch codes.

The way Donald Trump behaves it not only seems un-presidential and lacking statesmanship but based on some of his actions or statements,  he shows an ignorance of the Constitution that as president, he is sworn by oath to preserve, protect, and defend. Not only that, but imagine if some world leader were to say something that a president Trump didn’t like, as insults will surely come, will we be entering the “War of Armageddon” at long last? Some leaders in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, think that Donald Trump will bite his tongue and change his tone as the Convention nears but the brouhaha with Justice Ginsberg sees no sign of relent or retreat from the wrath of Donald. I think Justice Ginsberg is right on point and New Zealand might just be far enough away to escape the mushroom cloud of a nuclear holocaust after president Trump pushes that “Red” button.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 13, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

FBI Director James Comey gives Hillary Clinton free pass to the Oval Office

I never thought in my wildest imagination that there would be agreement between me and WA Post syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, but sadly it’s true. In the July 8, 2016 edition of the Tacoma News Tribune was an Op-Ed by him titled, “Why the FBI director let Clinton off the hook” that was quite compelling in making the case for, if not a cover-up, then some kind of political influence or maleficence. But before getting too far into the issue, the first thing to do is look at the federal laws that Hillary Clinton assumedly violated.

Secion 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that: Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.

18 U.S. Code § 793 (f/1)  - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through “gross negligence” permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

NOTE: The statute in this section, which applies to Hillary’s emails, does not require “intention.”

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either “intentionally” or in a “grossly negligent” way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time. Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were “extremely careless” in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

NOTE: Isn’t “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent” the same or equivalent thing, legally speaking?

Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. Opinions are irrelevant, only facts matter. Comey cited a lack of precedence in charging someone under similar circumstances, saying his bureau could not find a single case in which a person was charged with crimes for similar actions.

 

> End of FBI Detector James Comey's comments

 

Oh, really, what about the following:

Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband.

Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material: Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pled guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials during stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. Here’s the money quote from the AP – “An FBI search of Nishimura’s home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.” The exact words used to clear Hillary of her misdeeds. Instead, Nishimura was sentenced to two years’ probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance. Meanwhile, Clinton will be able to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Low Level Submarine Shipmate Prosecuted for Less Serious Crime than Clinton: Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier allegedly used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation. He was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice.

Marine Corps. Major Caught Sending Classified Documents to Superiors Using Personal Email: Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he “accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.” According to the report, Brezler was “in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.”

Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”

State Dept. Official Steals Classified Docs:  Donald Willis Keyser earned over a year in prison when he “pled guilty to a three-count Criminal Information in which he admitted that he willfully and unlawfully removed classified documents and digital memory devices from the Department of State to his residence.” United States Attorney Chuck Rosenberg stated that Keyser “had an absolute obligation to safeguard the classified information entrusted to him and utterly failed to do so.

So, after the abundance to the contrary and legal statutes notwithstanding, one can only speculate as to why Director Comey did not recommend indicting Hillary Clinton to Attorney general Loretta Lynch, and did the seemingly serendipitous meeting between the AG and hubby Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, AZ, have something to do with the legal outcome; or was this an inside job and the outcome already decided? Hillary Clinton is on the verge of making history and who would want to be the individual to derail the nomination and election of the first female president of the United States? Well, I guess after it is all said and done, this power couple may be the only husband and wife political tag team with matching towels in the master bathroom of their Chappaqua, NY mansion embroidered with:

                      HIS                                                          HERS
Indicted but never convicted                           Investigated but never
                                                                                prosecuted

 

 Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 12, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

The deadly shooting in Dallas: Symptomatic of a nation in crisis?

The shooting deaths of four Dallas police and one transit officer has shocked the nation as never before. This is the single loss of life by law enforcement since 911, but the circumstances are entirely different in scope and purpose. This brazen and unprovoked attack on police officials happened ironically, during a peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstration. The reason for the attack was based on the lone gunman’s displeasure over the recent shooting deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philandro Castile of Minnesota by White police officers. Dallas police cornered the gunman in a parking garage and after negotiations with the police failed, the decision was made to send in a robotic device armed with an explosive and detonate it near the suspect; finally bring an end to a day filled with tragedy, horror, suffering, pain, and death.

Of course, when an incident like this happens there are so many questions but few answers. Predictably also, are the recriminations and playing the blame game; as well as fanning the flames of social unrest. So where does one start in the dialogue? Let me get right to the point, then. To all the good and well-meaning participants of the Black Lives Matter movement, it’s time for a reality check- “BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER” to the majority of Americans who are not Black. I mean, how many mixed ethnicities do you see at the BLM rallies except Whites, who always seem to join up with these kind of anti-establishment, peace, civil/gay rights or countercultural movements or protests. Where are Asian citizens, Middle Eastern, Eastern or Northern Europeans, Latinos, Jewish, Muslim, and others? If they are among those who want to fight injustice either their presence is quite small or the news cameras do not show them in any significant number.

Anyway, it’s time to cut to the chase. To put it bluntly, Blacks in America have no “leverage” that can be used to influence or challenge the institutions of power in America to their benefit. In Marxian terms, African-Americans do not control the “factors of production” or the allocation of resources in this country. What would happen if Canadian males were victims of excessive use of force leading to their deaths in their encounters with the police? Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the United States, so the Canadian government would simply retaliate by cutting back on selling oil to us. Different scenario: Chinese men were treated the same way as African-American men as far as profiling, traffic stops or any other encounters with police resulting with a loss of life- what would happen? China is the largest purchaser of U.S. Treasuries they would retaliate and simply dump them on the market; resulting in trillions of dollars in losses and literally sinking the American economy. It would hurt China too, but I think it would hurt us more by creating a deep recession and depression that would take years to recover from. So, do you see where I am going with this?

There is a saying, “Perception is Reality” but the truth is that what is really real just might be other than what one believes or experienced on a personal level. President Barack Obama sees America as progressing in the right way but Civil Rights icon Georgia Congressman John Lewis sees it differently. To him, American seems to be sliding back from all the social advances that came about over the last forty years or so. Given the choice between the two opinions I defer to Congressman Lewis.  At the time that Congressman Lewis was being mistreated by angry mobs of Whites in The South, Barry Obama was probably eating coconuts and smoking marijuana with his teenage friends in Hawaii. So, where do we go from here? Please, not another summit or panel of law enforcement officials and leaders from the Black community; or sociologists, mental health professionals, or clergy urging us to pray (again); or even an appeal for peace by Beyonce and Jay-Z. Hillary Clinton mentioned that Whit people need to try to understand about the challenges and issues that Blacks face, but it is an introspection that she doesn’t practice herself. I mean, she only cares about Black Lives Matter to the extent that it means votes for her; it’s the votes that matter, not necessarily the people casting them. I do however, agree with Hillary’s point but not the lack of sincerity and broad smile in which she echoed those words. The question really is, “What kind of America do we, and especially the majority of White people want- one married by violence, racial injustice and social inequality?” Do we want to make America, not great again as envisioned by Donald Trump; but greater than she has ever been? Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said, “You don’t go to war with the military that you wish you had but with the one that you have.” So, in closing, do we as citizens of the United States, go into a bright, prosperous and glorious future with optimism, hope, living up to our high ideals as the greatest nation on earth? Will we soar to the heights or descend down into the abyss of hatred and violence? The choice is ours to make; all of us not just some of us.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St #701

Tacoma, WA 98402

July 11, 2016

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Gay rights organizations target Christian Universities

In the July 2016 edition of The Christian Chronicle, reporter Bobby Ross Jr wrote an interesting article about the LGBTQ community wanting to put religious colleges on the “shame” list. It seems that these activists want to punish these institutions for their standing firm on traditional Biblical beliefs on sexuality and gender identity. They want the federal government to revoke Pell Grants and for the NCAA to expel these schools from their ranks because of their faith. Although the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling on same-sex marriage being legal the matter is a little more complicated when it pertains to the sacred (religious) as opposed to the secular. The following is offered for consideration:

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (1972) prohibits discrimination based on “sex” and it was ‘originally’ intended to protect females from differential treatment in the field of education [esp. sports activities]. The legislation, as it is currently interpreted does not apply to someone who “self-identifies” as a particular gender or no gender at all. The law would have to be amended to include “gendered/non-gendered” persons for it to be legally enforceable; and even then, it would indemnify Christian or other religious institutions. The First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise [of religion] thereof.  Any Christian organization, parochial school or institute of higher learning engaging in the functioning of their responsibility, in practicing and teaching their religious traditions in faithful commitment to the Bible as the inspired word of God is protected under the Constitution.

This is not to ignore the fact that some individuals among the community of faith are not welcoming to LGBTQ individuals and show extreme intolerance, bigotry, discrimination, and the love of Jesus Christ is certainly absent in their behaviors. Having admitted this, though, any believer has the right to express whatever they feel but the institution itself cannot be blamed for the actions of a few misguided, insecure, neurotic, over-zealous, and fanatical troublemakers. Be that as it may, one’s religious convictions cannot be ignored as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case. In June 2013 the nation’s highest Court upheld the ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision the Justices agreed that co-founders David and Barbara Green were not required to provide against their religious beliefs (practices) insurance coverage for prescription drugs or medical devices that could be used by female employees who wanted to get an abortion. The green’s argued, and quite successfully I might add, that forcing them to include the provision in the company insurance plan “substantially” burdened their religious belief in violation of federal law- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

RFRA (1993??), passed into law by Congress, prohibits any government agency, department, or official of the United States or any State government from “substantially” burdening a person’s exercise of religion – even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, “except” the government may burden a person’s exercise of religion “only” if it demonstrates [can demonstrate] that the application of the burden to the person [organization/institution??]

·         furthers a compelling government interest [NOTE: not the same thing as ‘substantial’ as it pertains to a “suspect class];

·         and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, I believe Justice Breyer opined, “Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.” So, if Christian owners of a business that has a secular activity can be protected from government intrusion under RFRA [and the First Amendment . . . emphasis mine], then what about the same should be for Christian and all other institutions whose activities serve a religious function?  To punish these schools or threaten with punitive action, when as with Antigone by the poet Sophocles, one must be guided by a higher law [law of conscience or to deity], would be obscene indeed, and not worthy of our founding principles.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St #701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 6, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Does Bill Clinton really have Hillary's back?

The best screenwriters in Hollywood couldn't have come up with a better script. Hillary Clinton is on the verge of becoming America's first female presidential nominee from any major political party since the founding of the Republic, and has a very good chance of being elected president, and then hubby Bill does the unthinkable. While at the Phoenix airport, the former president curiously delays his charted, private jet from taking off from the tarmac, but instead waits for the arrival of the Attorney General Loretta Lynch's flight, wherein afterwards he along with the AG and her husband talked about grandkids, family and other such mundane topics- sound suspicious, you bet! This was not a chance of fate or serendipity but a calculated and well-planned encounter where it seems the motivation is not fully known. This is all the more curious that "slick Willie" would want to jeopardize or cast a shadow on his wife's bid to become president because he is a master of political gamesmanship.

The timing couldn't be any worse and it does lead one to have suspicions, especially since the FBI is about to wrap up their investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server when she was Secretary of State that might have contained Classified as well as Top Secret government information. Not only that but the agency was to forward their recommendation to the AG's office to either prosecute or exonerate the presidential nominee for any criminal misconduct. Be that as it may, Loretta Lynch should have known better and that any contact between her and anyone involved in the Justice Department's investigation in the matter would compromise the integrity of the office of the AG and prejudice the outcome. Instead of recusing herself or appointing a Special Prosecutor, Mrs. Lynch said that she would accept the recommendation of the FBI, which it seems, has cleared the former Secretary of State from any unlawful acts; which is surprisingly fast since the final report wasn't supposed to be issued until next week. Of course, everything has to be done before the DNC which starts in about two weeks-talk about perfect timing! Now, one cannot be nominated for the presidency with a possible criminal indictment having over their (her) head, can they?

A subplot of this mess, which I think is the main story was hinted at by WA Post syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker's  Op-Ed featured in the Tacoma News Tribune July 5, 2016 edition, titled, "Bill-gate, again"? She asks the striking question, does Bill really want Hillary to be president?" I think deep down inside he really doesn't want her to succeed because her election and presidential victory would leave a significant mark in the historical as well as political narrative of this nation. Hubby Bill Clinton would just be another White male in a long list of others who have occupied the Oval Office, though significant, is not a breakthrough event in and of itself. The same cannot be said for Hillary Rodham-Clinton whose journey has taken her from First Lady of the State of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator (D-NY), Secretary of State appointed by the first African-American president of the United States, and poised on the precipice of history (that word again) to be the first female POTUS. Call it male ego or whatever but let's face it, Bill's time has come and gone- now it's Hillary's time to wear the pants around the house and not those just pant suits as she becomes Madame President and Commander-in-Chief of the world's most powerful military and possessor of the nuclear launch codes. I'm not so sure Bill wants to be in her shadow and wearing an apron, at least psychologically, as the First Husband. So, instead of Bill having Hillary's back, his recent action makes me wonder if he isn't trying to stab her in the back.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 5, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com