Sexual misconduct the result of White male power and privilege

It's time to get real serious and honest about sexual assault. Ever since Rose McGowan accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual abuse or rape, almost everyday since that time there seems to be one story after another about some notable male person being charged with sexual misconduct; from Roger Ailes to judge Roy Moore of Alabama, former president George H.W. Bush, Comedian C.K. Louis, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, and the latest, co-anchor Charlie Rose of CBS This Morning and Director Oliver Stone. The fact is, this behavior should not surprise many American because it is nothing new. Hollywood is certainly not H-o-l-y-wood, and who can forget all the salacious sexual content during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing before the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Supreme Court Justice. White men forcibly raped their Black female slaves with impunity and does not the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence attest that . . .ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL? This was no accident but intentional and women were not given the right to vote ("suffrage") until 1920, half a century after freed slaves were allowed to exercise the franchise.

When former president Bill Clinton appeared on the Oprah show and she asked him about why he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. At first he paused, and then after pondering for a few moments, said quite frankly, "I did it because I could." This is the crux or focal point of White male power that translates into privilege because for the most simple of reasons, you do it because you can. Think about it for a minute, who controls all the institutions of power in America? If any woman is in a position of power in this country, a more powerful man, whether a husband, father, or a group of White men exercise control over all important economic, religious, legal, military, political or other decision-making systems that control the allocation of resources and the valuation of such in society. While due to the current situation and all the attention a few individuals have been publicly exposed and shamed, it is reasonable that a few of them will receive some kind of legal sanction or punishment, but it won't really change anything from a macro level because women are not valued the same as White men; earning roughly $0.72 to each dollar that a male is paid for the same type of work. Like any scandal, this too will blow over and people will eventually forget about it when the next mass shooting or terrorist attack happens, and the major news networks bombards the airwaves as well as social media with unrelenting, repetitive and  continuous round the clock coverage.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

November 21, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

The Federal Reserve and money creation

It must be realized that while money may represent an asset when considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not that at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think he has increased his financial position by that amount, but he has not. That $1,000 asset is offset by a loan liability of the same amount; thus his “net” cash position is zero. So, if you were to add up all the bank deposits in the nation the ‘net’ balance would be zero because every bit of this money is owed by somebody. Someone has to borrow every dollar that is in circulation, whether it is cash or credit; otherwise we all starve. Also, no matter where you work or earn money, it’s “origin” was a bank and its ultimate “destination” is to be deposited into a bank. Now, let’s see how money is created. The Federal Reserve purchases government bonds from the U.S. Treasury (not bought by the public) by writing a check to Congress in exchange for them (there is no money deposited anywhere to back up this check). By calling these bonds “Reserve Notes” the Federal Reserve uses them as a base for “creating” nine additional dollars for every dollar created on top of the bonds themselves. Some of the money is spent by the government while the rest is used as the source for bank loans made to businesses and individuals. Incidentally, the Federal Reserve charges and collects ‘interest’ payments on money it creates out of nothing. The benefit to Congress is that it now has access to unlimited funding without having to tell the public that they are paying a “tax” on this ‘fiat’ currency through the loss of purchasing power called “inflation.”

The U.S. Treasury printing press adds ink to pieces of paper (commercial paper??) and creates impressive designs around the edges, and calls this creation a Treasury Note/Bond. This is merely a government IOU or promise to pay a specified sum and accrued interest at some definite time in the future. In reality, the government has created cash (technically), but it doesn’t look like or have the function of currency/cash as of yet. This Bond/Note is purchased by the Federal Reserve where it is now considered an “asset” because it is backed by the government (“full faith and credit”) as good to pay the money back because of its taxing authority. The Federal Reserve can use this asset to offset any “liability” that it incurs in making loans to the banks. Now the Federal Reserve “creates” this liability by adding ink to yet another piece of paper and exchanging it with the government (U.S. Treasury). This second piece of paper becomes a Federal Reserve Check (although there is no money in any account to cover this check). This Check is received back at the U.S. Treasury department where it is endorsed (“legal tender”) and sent back to one of the Federal Reserve branch banks and deposited into the government’s account; where it pays government expenses. After that, it is transformed into many checks, becoming the ‘first wave’ of fiat money flooding into the economy (“money supply”).

Recipients of these checks deposit them into their own bank accounts where they become commercial bank deposits. Federal Reserve guidelines stipulate that these deposits are classified as “fractional reserves” because banks are permitted to hold as little as 10% in ‘reserve,’ while the remainder are called “excess reserves.” This makes these monies available to be converted into bank loans. Since it would be illegal to have a double-claim on the same money (customers’ deposits and borrower’s loans) the Federal Reserve merely creates money out of thin air for the purpose of backing the ‘excess reserve’ loan amounts. When this “second wave” of fiat money moves into the general economy, it comes right back into the banking system. What was a” loan” on Friday comes back as a “deposit” on Monday. This deposit is again reclassified as a “reserve” and ninety percent becomes “excess” and the process keeps repeating itself all over again. Now are you getting the picture? It takes about twenty-eight times of passing through the revolving door of deposits becoming loans before it finally maxes out. The amount of fiat money created by the Federal Reserve is approximately nine times the amount of the “original” government debt which made the entire process possible.

When banks run short on money the Federal Reserve stands ready as “the lender of last resort” to make loans available to them. Banks usually hold “reserves” of about 1-2% of deposits in vault cash and 8-9% in securities; so their operating margin is extremely thin. It is not uncommon for a bank to experience a temporary negative balance, caused by unusually high customer/depositor cash demand, or on large clusters of checks clearing through other banks at the same time. When a bank borrows a dollar from the Federal Reserve it becomes a one-dollar reserve. Since banks are required to keep reserves of only about ten percent, it means they can actually lend up to nine dollars for each dollar they borrow from the Federal Reserve. This is certainly a profit incentive for the bank, and it goes something like this: Some bank borrows one million dollars from the Federal Reserve and is charged an annual interest rate of 8%, so the total amount it has to pay on this loan is $80,000 ($1,000,000 x 0.08 = $80,000). The bank treats this loan as a cash deposit where it will be used as a basis for manufacturing an additional nine million dollars to be loaned out to borrowers. Let’s say the bank charges 11% annual interest on $9,000,000 in loans; that would amount to a whopping $990,000 ($9,000,000 x 0.11 = $990,000). But don’t forget that the additional income generated from this loan amount now becomes part of the overall money supply of the nation.

Here is a sober lesson for those advocates who want to pay off the national debt. Since our money supply, at the present time at least, is tied to the national debt, paying off the debt would cause money to disappear; consequently we would starve to death because how would we pay for anything? Even to seriously reduce it would cripple the economy. The Federal Reserve holds about 7% of the national debt, and since the money supply is pyramided roughly ten times (on top of government bonds), each dollar eliminated from the national debt would cause the money supply to contract dramatically ($1.00 x .07 x10 = $0.70). That’s right; for each debt that would be paid down or eliminated also means that the dollar would also shrink down to where everything balances to zero. So, debt is necessary- it’s just the management of that debt which poses the greatest problem.

NOTE: This information resourced from online and printed materials.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

November 2, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

President Trump launches verbal tirade against Black NFL players anthem protest

President Trump launches verbal tirade against Black NFL players anthem protest

The National Anthem protest started by former San Francisco Forty-niner QB Colin Kapernick jumped into high gear on Sunday, September 24, 2017, as more than 200 professional players and their coaches stayed in the locker room, locked arms in solidarity or took a knee at the singing of the National Anthem. While it can be argued that a sports event is not necessarily the best place to make a political statement, the comments by the Commander-in-Chief is inexcusable. It is one thing to disagree with the actions of the athletes, who are predominately Black, as they are the most affected by racial injustice, but to refer to them as “sons-of-bitches” is beyond the pale. Where was all this indignation and fury several weeks ago against the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, VA? The thing that is even more troubling is when fans of the game suggestions that these players should leave the country; and where should they go-back to Africa, perhaps?? Well, as Whoopie Goldberg once said on ABC's “The View”-”We ain't goin' nowhere, and have just as much of a right to be here as anyone else.”

It is interesting to hear about all this talk of dishonoring the country and flag by African-American professional footballers but fail to realize the sacrifices that African slaves and their descendants made for this country. Chrispus Attucks, a slave, was the first person to shed his blood at the Boston Massacre during the First American Revolution. Black slaves were decisive in the Union army gaining victory over the Confederate army in the American Civil War; and so on. Yet, there are those who will stipulate the “when” “where” and “what” is the proper forum or venue to have a peaceful and silent redress of grievances; though as free citizens we need their permission, understanding or toleration. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees all citizens certain protections, privileges or rights, and it is this document alone, which gives meaning to the flag, our form of government and national identity. There is no citizenship or patriotism test that requires saluting the flag and standing at attention during the singing of the National Anthem, but rather to pledge loyalty to America and the Constitution, this revered document, which is the Supreme law of the land. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing the National Anthem that most of us learned from Elementary School is merely social custom and tradition but to some others, it is for them like a sacred ritual.

I wonder if the Whigs in the 13 Colonies would have saluted the Union Jack of the British Parliament and King George, or taken a knee or sat during a recital of the England's National Anthem, especially if they were treated unjustly? The answer can be found in reading the Declaration of Independence, but I guess such actions which birthed a new nation to break the yoke of tyranny, with an insatiable thirst for freedom and social equity “only” applies to some people but not to others. Peaceful and silent protest, as it would seem, is the highest, noble, and most honorable patriotism. As last point: president Trump spoke before a crowd of supporters in Huntsville, AL to support Senator Luther Strange where he worked up the crowd by saying that NFL owners should fire players, but the way he screamed, “You're fired” was reminiscent of Howard Dean's famous 'scream' at the 2004 Iowa caucus. Talk about Trump, it was really S-T-R-A-N-G-E, at that.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 25, 2017
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Christian cake decorator refuses to make wedding cake for gay couple

The U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests every year, but less than seventy are ever approved for oral hearings or review. The petition filed on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd., on “Writ of Certiorari” should have been one of the many cases that the nation’s Highest Court should have passed on. For one thing, the legal argument is not valid and without merit because it seeks to indict the State government of using its coercive power to force someone into actions that violates their conscience right of “Free Speech” (Free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment). In the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefelt v Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion thusly: The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs", but the "identification and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to any formula. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act", for "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Now, it is time for the historical backdrop to this legal appeal to the Supreme Court:

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips (“Plaintiff”), who is a Christian, refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple ( Charlie David and Craig Mullins) on the basis that to do so violated his religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the CCRC ruled that the owner (Phillips) violated the state’s public accommodations law which prohibits businesses open to the public from discrimination against their customers on the basis of religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The owner appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, which upheld the decision by the CCRC, and asserted: despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the “expected” conduct of Phillips business, and NOT an expression of “Free Speech” or the “free exercise of religion.”

NOTE: This religion exception is an old argument that has been soundly rejected by lower courts in the following:

Sweet Cakes by Melissa

Christian bakers who lost their store and were fined $135,000 for declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding brought their case before the Oregon Court of Appeals Thursday in an attempt to overturn the judgment. Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon, said they simply want the freedom to live by the tenets of their faith. “We just want the government to tolerate and accept differences of opinion, so we can continue to follow our faith,” Mrs. Klein said at a press conference following hearing. “We hope that, even if people have different beliefs from us, that they will show each other tolerance and that we can peacefully live together and still follow our faith. That’s all we want. “An administrative judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the couple guilty of discrimination for declining to bake a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer-Bowman and Laurel Bowman-Cryer in 2013. Cryer in 2013.The bakers were ordered to pay $135,000 for the mental and emotional damages they caused the lesbian couple. Attorneys argued Thursday that the government violated the Klein’s’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religious exercise and due process. “The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, which represents the Klein’s, said in a statement. “In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Klein’s’ rights to free speech and religious liberty.” It is illegal under Oregon law for businesses to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ingersoll v Arlene’s Flowers (Arlene Flowers lawsuit)

Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed were shocked and hurt when their longtime florist refused to do the flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The couple, with the help of attorneys, sued Richland florist Barronelle Stutzman under Washington’s anti-discrimination and consumer-protection laws. Attorneys for Stutzman argued Tuesday that a floral arrangement is a form of speech deserving of protection and that government cannot compel Stutzman to create an arrangement for a gay couple against her religious beliefs. State Attorney General Bob Ferguson urged the court to uphold state anti-discrimination laws and not to create an exception for religious beliefs. He noted that many people once held strong religious beliefs against interracial marriage, but the courts ultimately struck down those laws as discriminatory. Cathy Echelbarger, of Edmonds, said she believed the case was about freedom of religion. “The government shouldn’t be telling her who she should or shouldn’t be doing business with,” she said. Stutzman and her attorneys argue that the court’s ruling is unlawful government coercion and that the creative expression of floral arrangement deserves the same protection as free speech. “The government is coming in and telling me what to say, what to create, what to believe. That’s not America to me,” Stutzman said. During Tuesday’s hearing, several justices expressed skepticism for that argument, asking, “So anyone worried about their [creative artistic] expression may deny services to a customer?” asked Justice Steven Gonzales.

Mr. Phillips was a guest on ABC’s “The View” on Friday, June 30, 2017, where he explained his religious objection for refusing service to a same-sex couple. He believes that marriage is between a man and woman and a wedding ceremony is sacred and blessed by God, and that to be forced to prepare and adorn such a cake would violate his conscience and religious belief. I think the legal issue that the SCOTUS Justices need to decide is: Whether creative artistic business expressions are protected under the First Amendment “Free exercise of religion” Clause. A cursory reading of the Constitution seems to echo silence on how a business should operate, but the Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are “reserved” to the States respectively; or to the People. The licensing of any business is done by the State and has the sovereign right to regulate through its laws and statutes how such entities that are engaged in commerce to the public are to operate with respect to customers. If the Supreme Court should decide in Mr. Phillips favor, it would be a “slippery slope” and set legal precedent  extending far beyond this particular case, leading not only to legal challenges by the state but other unexpected and unintended consequences.

It must also be mentioned that religious liberty doesn’t only just mean Christianity. Since Mr. Phillips would not decorate a wedding cake for non-traditional marriages, I suppose a Mormon plural marriage or a Wicca ceremony is out of the question. Not only that, to be consistent, a gay couple celebrating a wedding anniversary or a same-sex couple celebrating the birthday of a child they adopted probably would not get his business, either. Would Masterpiece Cakeshop provide a decorated cake for a Santeria wedding; what about a Hindu one? This complaint involves just one business owner, but what about others-florists, Olan Mills portrait studios, Hall mark greeting cards, wedding planners, Interior Decorators, catering services, etc. The Declaration of Independence to the Constitution uses such lofty words as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but how can this goal be achieved when religion is used as a “wall of discrimination” that separates groups of people. A person suffers ‘harm’ when they are denied the legitimate, reasonable, and lawful expectation from business goods and services. Besides all that, religious beliefs are fluid and changeable; there is no universally-agreed-upon Truth. Religious practices and teachings undergo constant reevaluation and evolution. The religion ‘exception’ can be/is used ‘arbitrarily’ in many cases to foster intolerance, bigotry, prejudice or a judgmental attitude. This confers on the objects of disaffection a second-class status by denial of such person’s liberty, social justice and the full entitlement of all rights as citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

June 29, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

We the People v Donald J. Trump

The Sixth Amendment says that the U.S. Constitution is the “law of the Land” and that all elected officials are bound by oath to obey it. This means that no one, not even the Chief Executive is above the law. As it pertains to president Trump, there are two legal issues that are under consideration:

1) Did the president commit an impeachable offense in violation of Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution?

2) Was the president’s actions an abuse of power as stipulated by 18 U.S. Code § 1505?

I believe it was Sen. Angus King of the Senate Intelligence Committee that affirmed the applicable legal standard when he mentioned to James Comey: “In a court case when you are weighing evidence, contemporaneous memos, statements to third parties are ‘probative’ in terms of validity of testimony.” It is with this basis in mind that the following timeline of events and sources are offered:

Washington Post:

December 29, 2016

Flynn, incoming national security adviser for Trump, phone with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, and discusses the sanctions and suggests the possibility of sanctions relief once Trump is president. The call is monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Jan 26, 2017

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, accompanied by an aide, goes to the White House and tells White House Counsel Donald McGahn that, contrary to Flynn’s claims to White House officials, sanctions had been discussed in the calls, based on the monitoring of the conversations by intelligence agencies. She also warns that Flynn is vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.

Jan 27, 2017

McGahn asks Yates to come to the White House again to discuss the matter further. Yates testified that he did not indicate whether he had discussed the Flynn situation with anyone else at the White House, but White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters “the president was immediately informed of the situation.” McGahn asked why the Justice Department would be concerned whether one White House official lied to another, she said. “Logic would tell you that you don’t want the national security adviser to be in a position where the Russians have leverage over him,” she said. McGahn also asks to see the underlying evidence. Yates says she would work with the FBI to assemble the material, and McGahn’s review is scheduled for Jan. 30.

NOTE: The White House lawyer though it was such an inconsequential matter and didn’t recognize the legal seriousness of Flynn’s contact with the Russians; not to mention lying about it?

Jan 30, 2017
Trump fires Yates, allegedly over an unrelated matter — her conclusion that Trump’s executive order barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries was “unlawful.” The executive order is later blocked by the courts.

NOTE: This firing is suspicious.

Feb 13, 2017
The Washington Post reports that the White House had known for weeks that Flynn had misled people about the nature of the Kislyak calls.

Feb 14, 2017

Comey’s version (from written congressional testimony, June 8): “On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President,” Comey said in his congressional testimony. “The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone….When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ … The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify… ‘He is a good guy and has been through a lot.’ He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ …I did not say I would ‘let this go.’” Comey said that given the setting and the fact that Trump asked to see him alone, he took the president’s words as a directive.

Comey also testified before the Committee that General Flynn, at that point in time was in legal jeopardy-there was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with Russian contacts and the contacts themselves.

NOTE: In the statement taken from James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee (memo page 5, par. 3), these 28 words reflect president Trump’s ‘intent’ because the phrase “let him go/let Flynn go” is repeated three times. Let’s see is there is further proof offered to determine if one has difficulty understanding what president Trump wants done. Donald Trump Jr. — the president's eldest son — seemed to confirm Comey's version of events in a Saturday, June 11, 2017, interview on Fox News as he tried to emphasize the fact that his father did not directly order Comey to stop investigating Flynn. “When he tells you to do something, guess what? There's no ambiguity in it, there's no, 'Hey, I'm hoping,'"

CNN:

May 9, 2017

Trump fires Comey, effective immediately. In his dismissal letter, Trump cites a recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote in an attached memo that Comey's handling of the investigation into Clinton's email server was to blame. CNN reports that federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election. CNN learned of the subpoenas hours before Comey's firing.

May 10, 2017

In a morning "tweetstorm," Trump says Democrats have wanted Comey gone for a while and are now faking outrage at his firing. "Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!" n a photo-op with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Trump says he fired Comey "because he wasn't doing a good job."

The same day, Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office, but the White House blocks US media from photographing the event. Russian state-sponsored media post photos of the meeting, angering a White House official. Deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Comey committed "basic atrocities" by going around the Justice Department chain of command and speaking out during the Clinton email investigation. She also says Trump had considered letting Comey go as early as Election Day.

NOTE: Let’s see if that last part is really true, shall we?

OCTOBER 31, 2016 – Trump holds a rally in Grand Rapids, MI

“You know that. It took a lot of guts. I really disagreed with him. I was not his fan,” Trump said of Comey. “I tell you what, what he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back. He's got to hang tough. A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing. What he did was the right thing.”

NOVEMBER 13, 2016 – Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview with Lesley Stahl

“I respect him a lot. I respect the FBI a lot,” Trump said.

During the interview, Stahl asked if Trump wanted Comey gone when he came into office, to which Trump replied that he wasn’t sure. He said despite what he perceived as “leaks” coming from the FBI, he wanted to speak with Comey before answering that kind of question.

APRIL 12, 2017 - Trump's interview with Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo

It's not too late [to ask Comey to step down], but, you know, I have confidence in him. We'll see what happens, you know, it's going to be interesting," Trump said.

This last part has to do with Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13. Atty. Gen. Sessions was asked about what former FBI Director James Comey said about meeting with president Trump alone. He said, “There is nothing wrong with the president having communication with the FBI director. What is problematic for any Department of Justice employee is to talk to any cabinet persons or White House officials about ongoing investigations that are not properly cleared through the top levels of the Department of Justice. I took it as a concern that he might be asked something that was improper, and I affirmed to him his willingness to say no or not go in an improper way, improper direction. I will say it this way.

We were there and I was standing there and without revealing any conversation that took place, what I recall is that I did depart and I believe everyone else did depart and Director Comey was sitting in front of the president's desk and they were talking. I believe it was the next day that he said something and expressed concern about being left alone with the president. That in itself is not problematic. He did not tell me at that time any details about anything that was said that was improper. I affirmed his concern that we should be following the proper guidelines of the Department of Justice and basically backed him up in his concerns. He should not carry on any conversation with the president or anyone else about an investigation in a way that was not proper.

NOTE: This is puzzling because if the Attorney General thought that president Trump might breach the proper policies between branches of government, why didn’t he insist on staying; and why wasn’t the White House counsel present? Maybe the president wanted some kind of “patronage” relationship after-all.

President Trump had or placed 2 telephone calls to FBI Director James Comey on March 30 and April 11, where he mentioned that the Russia investigation was “a cloud that was impairing his ability as president” and that he wanted him to “lift the cloud.” On May 11, 2017 Trump, in an interview with Lester Holt of NBC News, says he had already decided to fire Comey before receiving Rosenstein's recommendation. "Regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey," Trump tells NBC. Trump also says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he made the decision. "When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

NOTE: I presume these calls were recorded or the conversation was overheard over the speakerphone by one of James Comey's staff. Not only that, but wasn't it unusual and outside the chain-of-command for the Executive branch of the White House to be speaking directly with the FBI Director, and not through Comey's boss, the Attorney General?

To sum it all up then:

President Trump fires acting Attorney General Sally Yates because of her investigation into Michael Flynn. President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey because of “not letting Flynn go” and also “not lifting the cloud” of the Russia investigation. Whether there is sufficient probable cause that president Trump acted illegally has to be weighed in the Court of public opinion, as well in the halls of Congress. The thing is though, would a ‘reasonable’ person not think that there is more than circumstantial evidence, rising to the level of “probable cause” that the president’s actions constitute abuse of power; amounting to Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 and Art. II, Sect. 4 (High Crimes and Misdemeanors. . .). Ironically, Senator Lindsey Graham probably said it best on Face the Nation, June 11, 2017: “What is so frustrating for Republicans like me is that Trump may be the first president in history to go down because you can’t stop inappropriately talking about an investigation that, if you were just quiet, would clear you.”  Well, I guess president Trump can always “refudiate” (Sarah Palin) any testimony presented against him as ‘alternative facts’ “Fake News” and a political “Witch Hunt.” Oh, wait; he’s already used that one, but ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

June 20, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

All the president’s men (ver. 2.0)

There is an old saying that “Truth is stranger than fiction,” and when it comes to the unrelenting effort to put out the many fires issuing from the Trump White House, the American people are suffering from heat exhaustion; not to mention an over-exposure to the toxic fumes from lies and innuendo. There are elements for a new novel and political thriller from author James Patterson that combines a collage or trifecta derived from movies and series like: “The Manchurian Candidate;” “A Few Good Men;” and the “X-Files.” Taken in order- the Soviets (Russians) brainwash, compromise or influence a person to be an agent for the Kremlin, where the actions they undertake influences the outcome of an American presidential election (sound familiar??). Next, there is a situation in which a Marine General is hiding a secret, or not giving full disclosure regarding a criminal investigation into his possible complicity.

Mike Flynn was a Lieutenant General in the U.S. Army; though not the Marines, but he did not fully disclose information about his contact with Russian officials. The ‘X-Files’ has to do with government conspiracy and keeping the truth from the American people. However, the search for truth and to expose government malfeasance at the highest levels is pursued by ironically, FBI agents Dana Scully and Fox Mulder. Former FBI Director James Comey’s name sounds like Dana Scully, and also Special Prosecutor and former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s name sounds like Fox Mulder. There might not be a “Smoking Man” in this current situation of political intrigue, but the Trump administration has been blowing a lot of ‘smoke’ in the faces of the American citizens to obfuscate the truth by any means necessary. 

President Trump said after James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, that he feels vindicated because Comey said for the first time in public that he was not under any current [counter-intelligence] investigation by the FBI. I wonder how the president feels now that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller says that he is now part of the Russia investigation.  As a final thought- this is becoming eerily similar in some aspects to “Watergate” where there is evidence of presidential abuse of power. As with then there were tapes but as of now, there are only rumors of tapes. It was forty-three years ago during what is called “The Saturday Night Massacre” that associates of president Nixon broke into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in the Watergate office/residential complex in Washington, DC At the time, Congress was already looking into the break-in and investigating Nixon’s potential involvement and cover-up efforts. Operatives at the highest levels of the Russian government broke into the DNC database and electoral system to affect the outcome of an American presidential election and our Democratic process.

Not only that; but President Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. There are rumors circulating that have been unsubstantiated by president Trump, Deputy press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or Press Secretary Sean Spicer that there is any intention the fire Mueller. Sanders went on to add that, “While the president has the right to, he has no intention to do so,” Lastly, there are so many leaks coming from the Trump administration that I doubt if the ‘Watergate’ plumbers could plug all of them.

#TrumpGate

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

June 15, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is America headed for another financial meltdown?

I just finished reading the book, “The Aftershock Investor” (2014) by Wildener and Seitzer, and it convinced me that America is headed for another financial crisis; one that will be more severe and extended over a longer period of time before showing any signs of a recovery than the event of 2008. What this country is experiencing now is the illusion of an economic recovery based on the Federal Reserve pumping massive amounts of dollars into the economy but sooner or later this bubble is going to burst. The authors indicate that since 2008 the money supply has grown from $800 billion dollars to more than $3 trillion (275% or at the rate of 34.375% annually since then). Not only that, but the reports published by the Federal Reserve show that government debt was $930 billion dollars in 1980, rising to $16.8 trillion dollars in 2013; that’s a whopping 1706% during the time period and 51.7% annually.

According to the White House Bureau of Economic Analysis, Wildener and Seitzer mention the total increase in GDP between 2008 and 2012 was $2.8 trillion dollars, while government spending for the same period was $4.7 trillion. Also, in that same report, GDP growth for 2013 was $315 billion dollars and government borrowing/debt was $750 billion dollars. This trend is unsustainable and sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost. Creating massive amounts of paper money faster than the economy is growing is the very definition of “inflation” as this devalues the dollar, resulting in higher costs for goods and services; not to mention that this will cause the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. I think the answer is to increase productivity in the manufacturing and services sectors to increase GDP. This is done by making America more business-friendly by changing or eliminating job-killing regulations and international trade deals that stifle corporate investments in domestic industries. Why should American companies use all of our talent and technological and innovative know-how to grow the GDP’s of other countries when they should be doing this here?

The federal government should consider letting the individual state legislatures, where some of the large multinational or Fortune 100/500 companies are located, decide or work out with these industries what the best environmental and worker protection policies for them; or let the citizens choose by ‘direct democracy’ activism through ballot referendums and initiatives. This might be a better solution than impose a levy on imports or tax corporate profits; which would not raise enough revenue anyway.  Many people who think that the economy has recovered fail to take into account that in a ‘macro’ economy there is usually a “lag time” of several years between expansion of the money supply and when inflation occurs; although if one has been paying attention the cost of things are more than they were a few years ago. So, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives need to work in a bi-partisan or non-partisan way to enact legislation that will bring businesses back to America, not have the Federal Reserve keep filling up that paper money balloon because it can only expand so far until it finally bursts.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

May 23, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Should rape/love-making be compared to the slave/immigrant experience?

Sometimes I read a newspaper article in the Opinion section, and while I might not always agree the writer’s viewpoint, it is rare that I feel so compelled to respond- this time, however, is one of those occasions demanding a swift call for clarity on my part. In the Tacoma News Tribune, Sunday March 12, 2017 edition, Section 6B, featured an editorial by syndicated Miami Herald syndicated columnist Leonard Pitt’s reaction to Dr. Ben Carson’s speech before his HUD staffers, in which he compared the experiences of African slaves brought to America as those of European immigrants. While it would be relatively easy to excoriate the former Neurosurgeon for having such a blatantly irresponsible lack of historical perspective, my attention was instead drawn away from that absurdity to one of an even greater magnitude of concern. Mr. Pitts attempt to deconstruct the ridiculousness of the HUD Secretary’s statements was undermined, in my opinion, by his own bizarre and strangely hypothetical narrative of a woman being raped.

After setting up the scene in rather explicit, graphic detail, sparing nothing to the imagination, he writes that the rapist “violently makes to her” –what?? Continuing on, “After all, the basic mechanics of love-making and rape are the same: sexual intercourse. Now, I get what Mr. Pitts was trying to do in this story, and I am sure that he doesn’t think this way on a personal level, but on a professional level I think he should have left this part out. Dr. Carson does a pretty good job of shooting himself in the foot just about every time he opens his mouth to say something in the public sphere; therefore he doesn’t need any outside help to make him look even more of an embarrassment. That being said, I think anytime you chose to use the example of ‘rape’ in public or private conversation, you have to be very, very careful. This reminds me of a former Texas gubernatorial candidate who was scheduled to speak at a campaign rally, and the typically expected sunny day turned out to be overcast with some gray clouds. However, this good ol’ boy politician was unaware while he was standing at the podium before he was to address the crowd, that his mic was inadvertently turned on, and he was recorded saying: The weather is like being raped; nothing you can do but sit back and take it.” Needless to say he lost by a landslide at the polls, and after that his future political career was toast.

Case in point: There is no moral equivalent or comparable social experience between rape/love-making and being a slave/immigrant.  It seems that within the context of the article, Leonard Pitts needs to learn a few things, too.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 15, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Mental Health is a state of the body and not necessarily the mind

The solution to a problem is not always how much money is spent on treatment because if that were the case, then most of society’s ills would be cured by now. In The Tacoma Weekly, March 3, 2017 issue, the front-page storyline was “Bill Could Help with Mental Health, Addiction Funding.” The article mentioned about U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer’s effort in co-sponsoring a bill to help allocate money to fund communities to better provide mental health and drug and/or alcohol abuse services. Part of this legislation is to provide loans to hospitals and mental health agencies to provide psychiatric and addiction facilities and services. On page 5, Multicare and CHI Franciscan are working on a 40 million dollar plan to build a 120-bed facility at Allenmore Hospital that is scheduled sometime in 2018.  All this sounds well and good as far as intention, but isn’t this approach just more of the same as in the example of ‘insanity’- doing the same thing but expecting a different result?

There is such an urgent need to do something about combatting the spiraling trend of mental impairment from substance abuse or a life crisis or traumatic event that leads to homelessness and a spike in property-related crimes; not to mention mental disability leading to anti-social behaviors and learning disabilities in children as well as adults. This in turn causes more law enforcement resources to be used to combat theft, vandalism, burglaries, juvenile delinquency /truancy (??). This repetitious cycle of more beds, psychiatric therapy/counseling and prescription drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Ritalin [ADHD], etc.) are somewhat effective because the side-effects may outweigh their benefits. However, back in 1987, Carl C. Pfeiffer published an interesting book by the title, “Nutrition and Mental Health” in which he establishes a causal link between nutritional deficiencies or imbalances and mental behavior. Dr. Pfeiffer conducted research on patients suffering from schizophrenia (“manic-depressive psychosis”) and found that this condition was due to blood levels of the brain chemical ‘histamines’ (derived from testing high “basophil” count in white blood cells).

Of course, not all people have the same metabolism and as is the case, high histamine levels are present in individuals with MDP and in others it is the exact opposite. Another contributing factor is low levels of Zinc, based on the presence of “pyrroles” found in urine, indicative of low serum immunoglobulin A. Some of the symptoms of this condition are mental retardation, amnesia, and having learning disabilities. It has also been found that drug addicts have high histamine levels. I think one of the first things to do is to reclassify mental illness as a disease of the body based upon the accumulation of toxic substances instead of based on a function of the mind or socio-cultural factors. This would require an “orthomolecular” approach based on knowledge of ‘integrative’ medicine that treats the whole person, and includes proper nutritional supplementation that heals and detoxifies the body at the cellular level. This is not a one-step cookie cutter solution, but rather part of a holistic approach that combines exercise, proper diet, healthy living, managing stress and making the right lifestyle choices for optimum health and happiness. The old saying, “If it ain’t broke then don’t try to fix it” doesn’t apply in this case because the mental health system has been broke for a long, long time-more bed space, higher Psychiatrists’ fees and keeping people hooked on prescription drugs for the rest of their lives is no real solution at all.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 11, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Some helpful tips about enrolling in Medicare

When a person approaches retirement age a flood of information suddenly and unexpectedly starts appearing in the mailbox, as well as unsolicited calls from insurance companies and independent brokers regarding the best Medicare plan on the market. This is even more relentless than AARP membership offers that end up in the mailbox among other junk mail flyers. Since I have already enrolled in Medicare I felt it might be useful to share my experience with those who already are enrolled in a Medicare plan or are about to at some point in the future. The first thing I recommend is to order the free booklet, “MEDICARE & YOU” from the Department of Health & Human Services Medicaid & Medicare Services at 1-800-633-4227. The booklet will show what services are covered under Medicare as well as some of the Medicare Advantage plans that are available in the state in which you live.

Now here is what you need to know: If you decide to enroll in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) you will have to pay a monthly premium under this plan in addition to having a Medicare Plan B premium deducted from your Social Security (p. 17).  Now here is the real eye-opener: A Medicare Advantage Plan (HMO, PPO, etc.) is offered by “private companies” that are Medicare-approved by the U.S. Department of HHS and the administration of these services are set by government rules. If you elect a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) you get Medicare Part A (Hospital) and Part B (Doctor’s) coverage but it is “NOT ORIGINAL MEDICARE” as administered by the federal government. Additionally, it is not a supplemental plan because when you enroll in a MAP you are essentially dis-enrolled or “NOT” covered under ‘Original Medicare” and as such, you have to meet different deductibles, co-insurance/co-payment limits, and whatever else.

Perhaps the only real ‘Advantage’ in a MAP is that you have a yearly out-of-pocket maximum limit (p. 69), whereas under ‘Original Medicare’ there is no upper limit for annual out-of-pocket costs (p. 64). As with anything of value it is good to get as much information as possible before you choose the best plan for your needs. Contact MEDICARE and ask the representative to give you the cost of your annual deductible for Original Medicare part A (Hospital) and also for part B (Doctor) charges. The one thing that I found puzzling is that if I enroll in a MAP and pay premiums then why part B payments still are being deducted when I am no longer covered under Original Medicare, but when I asked this question all the person on the line did was continue to repeat that I have to have parts A and B to enroll in a MAP; which to me was not a real answer but rather the usual- you know what I mean.

Interestingly, there are no “Medigap” plans listed in the book (at least, for WA State) but quite a few Medicare Advantage plans, and Medigap is actually a supplemental plan because when you enroll in one you are still covered under Original Medicare, too. The thing is though; the premiums are usually quite a bit higher in some cases than either a MAP or Original Medicare but the annual deductibles are a lot lower in most (??) cases. When considering either plan outside Original Medicare try to find out if the annual out-of-pocket costs include deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance and/or other fees to determine if you are getting the most bang for your buck. This is your body and health needs and it doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist, having a representative or independent agent from one of these agencies contacting you, or attending a workshop to choose a plan; the good thing about all of this is you can always change your mind if you learn something else is better, and opt-out within the enrollment period. At the very worst, you can just wait another year and try another plan or remain in Original Medicare.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 1, 2017

robertrandle51@yahoo.com