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

The presidential choices: Bad temperment or Bad judgment?

In one more day the most vitriolic, nastiest and mean-spirited presidential election in modern history will come to a conclusion, and the winner will be president-elect of the United States; much to the relief of almost everyone in America. There are no adequate words to describe what the citizens have endured over these past months but bizarre, astonishing, unpredictable, exhausting and grueling are a few of the adjectives that can be used. This is a two-stage process where the candidate for president wins the popular vote and then sometime around December 8th, electors will meet in their state capitols and cast a vote for the president according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The political pundits, reporters, Talk Radio moderators and pollsters have inundated the public with minute-by-minute coverage but they often just focus on limited talking points which generate ratings and neglect other substantive considerations. I want to focus on some of the things that mainstream and conservative media might not have brought to the conversation.

Let’s begin with Donald Trump:

The biggest thing facing Donald Trump, if he becomes president, is about “temperament.” He has proven over and over again that he is thin-skinned, easily provoked and has made on more than one occasion reckless statements. Hillary Clinton was right when she warned Trump that “words matter.” And then there is still the matter of not disclosing his income tax, which is unprecedented for a presidential candidate this late in the game. Also, the TRUMP brand is at risk, which if he won the presidency, could be leveraged to advantage his business interests. There are already signs of some backlash because Ivanka Trump’s line of clothing and accessories carried in upscale stores like Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s and Nordstrom’s have caused customers to threaten to not buy from that line because of the negative association. The politicians who support Trump, especially if he loses may face challenges in their own congressional districts. Some evangelical preachers have put their reputations on the line, such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr and Mike Huckabee who have encouraged their faithful flocks to support this born-again Republican candidate.

 

Now, to shine the spotlight on Hillary Clinton:

The stakes could not be much higher for the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. There is a lot for Hillary to overcome, especially when it comes to transparency, ethics or trust, but perhaps the biggest issue, like a millstone around her neck is that she has “bad judgment.” With all of Hillary’s experience, knowledge and qualifications FBI Director James Comey concluded that her handling of emails was “extremely careless.” While this does not mean she is ‘grossly incompetent’ it should concern everyone that she could have acted this way  unintentionally, but if, on the other hand, her handling of emails was done knowingly, willingly, and intentionally, then this should be of grave concern to every American citizen.

This is Hillary’s second attempt to secure the nation’s highest elected office but her hopes were dashed to the ground by a little-known, African-American male named Barack Obama; a U.S. Senator from Chicago, IL who was serving his second year in office. Imagine the impact of another loss on the Clinton legacy to be defeated by a brash billionaire and one-time supporter, who has insulted so many persons, even the Pope of Rome. If Hillary is defeated this will be the handwriting on the wall, the closing chapter of the Clinton name or brand in power politics in America as well as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. This will be the swan song of a political career spanning over twenty years on the national scene, the setting of the sun, among the fading glories of the past, finally being laid to rest among the forgotten memories of obsolescence, irrelevance, and obscurity.

The winners and losers:

Whether Donald Trump becomes president or not, Mike Pence certainly has to be a serious candidate for a future president bid among Republicans. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway could see her status rise with a Trump victory but a loss would be detrimental to her marketability. She managed Ted Cruz’s campaign and he didn’t make the cut, and if this turns out badly, she will be associated with losers. RNC Riece Priebus has supported Trump and continued to funnel resources into the Trump campaign instead of diverting them toward congressional races when a few Republican candidates are vulnerable. If Trump loss his decision might be questioned by some of the establishment Republicans, especially if their members lose seats in Congress.

And then there are people like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie who will have egg on their face from a Trump loss. In the Clinton camp, endorsements by celebrities like Beyonce and Jay-Z, Katy Perry, Adele or LeBron James really don’t matter all that much, but is does, or it should to Barack and Michelle Obama The president and First Lady have been campaigning tirelessly on Hillary’s behalf in these past few weeks, and in fact, without their impassioned speeches at the DNC several months ago, this presidential race would be a lot different today than it is now. And then there is poor Bernie Sanders, and I wonder how he really feels because he had her on the ropes during the primaries, but let her off by not wanting to hear any more about “those damn emails.” He also pressed her hard or taking exorbitant speaking fees from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and yet promising, if she were elected president, to rein in their behavior.

I almost forgot about former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who already rigged the game in favor of Hillary Clinton; her political future will be toast after all this is over. Bernie Sanders supporters must be having mixed emotions and having been shut down at the Convention, will those who are electors in their respective states vote for Hillary Clinton? A person in WA State has already said he will not even if Hillary wins the electoral votes in this Blue State. And then there is FBI Director James Comey, whom I am sure already has his letter of resignation already written because he has no future at the agency or anywhere else in law enforcement; except maybe as a security guard. With his level of popularity at this point, he probably couldn’t even get a job as a dog catcher. The vacant seat in the Supreme Court is an issue that has caused some concern for voters, especially when it comes to the president. What should concern everyone is what political party controls the Senate because the president “only” makes appointments to the nation’s highest Court but the Senate has to “confirm” or approve the candidate. This is done through hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate majority comprises the committee members and is the tiebreaker on judicial appointments.

As a last point, if Donald Trump is elected president the smart thing to do is set the tone for conciliation, healing and a peaceful transfer of power, and Hillary Clinton should concede the election and help facilitate a more orderly transition along with President Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton becomes president she should try to bring people together and reassure everyone that she has a lot of work to do to gain the American people’s trust and respect, and that she want to serve everyone to the best of her ability; never taking their vote for granted or her place in history. Hillary should try to build a coalition of Moderate Republicans to be part of her Cabinet and a president Trump should behave more seriously as it pertains to governance, and as a smart thing start listening more to his advisors instead of going off script. Just like Hillary Clinton, he should try to build a coalition of some Moderate or Progressive Democrats to be part of his administration. Although it is still early, the Democrats need to be looking for the next presidential candidate that is well-known and has some national exposure because the Republicans are ahead of them on that one; it seems, possibly with Cruz or Rubio wanting to give it another shot. So, this election will answer one question: Do we, as American citizens live in a country that live in a country where the glass is half full (“we can be stronger together”), or do we live in one that seems half empty (“to make America great again”)? The answer will come sometime late Tuesday night.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Are federal mandatory sentencing laws unconstitutional?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits, among other things, cruel and unusual punishment. The statute forbids arbitrary and inconsistent criminal sanctions, which would seem to include: guidelines that are used to impose sentencing; length of incarceration; or the conditions under which a criminal defendant serves time. The so-called “War on Drugs” of the 1980’s, with its ‘get tough’ policies on criminals was a disaster because it caught up a disproportionately high number of Black offenders in its far-reaching and arbitrary drug enforcement dragnet. African-Americans are prosecuted at rates that are out of proportion compared to Whites in the actual use and sale of drugs, through receiving higher conviction rates and longer prison sentences. When it pertains to convictions on drug offenses racial minorities are routinely remanded over to federal authorities, where justices can impose mandatory sentencing verdicts on criminal defendants without the requirement for judicial review.

From 1992 to 1994, approximately 96.5% of all federal crack prosecutions were non-White. The U.S. Sentencing Commission Report (1992) determined that only minorities were prosecuted for crack offenses in over half of the federal judicial districts that handled crack cases. In a survey taken by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), between 1991 and 1993 Whites were twice as likely to have used crack nationwide than Blacks and Hispanics combined. Ironically, powder cocaine was used among upper class and affluent Whites, especially celebrities, with very little concern or interest among the police. When powdered cocaine started being cut into “crack” rocks and made more affordable and accessible to Blacks, especially in the inner cities, then it became a priority target of politicians and law enforcement agencies. As a result, this emphasis helped to initiate a series of aggressive and punitive drug prosecution and sentencing laws that hit the Black community especially hard.

Dan Wiekel, Los Angeles Times reporter wrote the article, “War on Crack Targets Minorities over Whites” (May, 21, 1995), in which his investigation revealed that not a single White offender has been convicted of crack cocaine offenses in federal court in the LA metropolitan area since 1986, despite the fact that “Whites are majority crack users.” He goes on to say that many African-Americans were low-level dealers [small time hustlers], first-time users or accomplices [non-violent??]; not the heavy traffickers in the drug trade with major distribution networks. Also, a 1993 report by NIDA found that African-Americans only comprise 13% of all drug users but account for 39% of all the arrests. Researchers James Lynch and William Sabol found a significant incarceration rate among non-poor Black drug users increased six-fold, while the rates for their White counterparts were the exact opposite (Mauer and Huling 11). The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that Blacks accounted for 84.5% of all federal crack possession convictions in 1993 (Welch and Argulo 9).

The numbers are even direr for females, especially those who are arrested for drug convictions, and crimes committed to support a drug habit. Nationwide, the number of women in state prisons increased 433% between 1896 and 1991. Black women were sentenced on drug offenses overall, with half of the charges stemming from crack offenses; compared to 5% for Hispanic women and 7% for White women. In a study of Black women crack users, Mindy Fullilone and her colleagues at Columbia University School of Public Health, their research found a complex pattern associated with depression and trauma resulting from physical, sexual and mental abuse that were the driving factors leading to drug abuse. So, to wrap this up, the question that needs to be asked is this: Is there an implicit and inherent bias in the criminal justice system that not only disproportionately but deliberately targets non-Whites (esp. African-Americans) with unfair criminal sanctions leading to unfair prosecution and excessive sentencing terms?  This is not only an Eight Amendment issue but also violates the “Due Process/Equal Protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Consuela B. Marshall, said: “We do see a lot of those [crack] cases, and one does ask why some are in state court [Whites??], and others are being prosecuted in federal court [Blacks??]. . .  and if it’s not based on race, [then] what’s it based on?”-Good question.  (Weich and Argulo 9).

REFERENCES

 

Mauer, Mark and Huling, Tracy. “Young Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System: Five Years
            Later,” The Sentencing Project, October 1995, pp. 1-36

Ulmer, Jeffrey T, Kurlchek, Megan C, and Kramer, John H (2007). Prosecutorial Discretion and the

            Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency,
            44.4, 427-459

Weich, Ronald and Argulo, Carlos (2012 November 21). Racial Disparities in the American Criminal
            Justice System. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from
           www.urbanpoverty,qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/.../Ronald-Weich-and-Carlos-Angul...

Wiekel, Dan, ‘War on Crack Targets Minorities over Whites.” The Los Angeles Times May 21, 1995:

            Print.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 7, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com