Beginning of the Coronavirus History

 In the Bible, it starts out "In the Beginning" and as it pertains to the coronavirus, which has caused the death of over 280,000 Americans along with infecting 12M more; there was a time before this, time. The following is a chronology of events since the "Age of Corona."

March 2020:

(3/4) 129 deaths; 10 deaths in WA state.

(3/6) president tRump signed 8.6B aid bill.

(3/13) tRump called national emergency; signed bill freeing up 50B in federal aid.

(3/20) CA state issues shutdown affecting 40M people. FL beaches closed.

15, 268 cases; 201 deaths.

(3/23) Senate passed 1.8T stimulus relief package.

(3/28) FDA approved a 15-minute coronavirus test. This technology is the same used for rapid flu tests (CNN).

(3/30) 27 states issue stay-at-home orders affecting 225M people; tRump extends order to April 30.

(3/31) 700 deaths in one day.

April 2020:

(4/12) 20,000 deaths; more than in Italy.

(4/14) FDA approved saliva test for emergency COVID-19 testing, the new quick test developed by Rutgers University.

May 2020:

(5/02) FDA approved Ebola drug "remdesivir" to combat coronavirus (CNN).

(5/09) WH staff tested positive for COVID -19; VP Pence's aide and WH valet.

(5/16) tRump fired State dept. IG Steve Linnick because he had been investigating Mike Pompeo for abuse of power.

(5/23) Coronavirus deaths near 100,000 (CNN).

(5/24) tRump orders travel ban against Brazil.

(5/30) New study finds 1 out of 10 coronavirus patients with diabetes die within first week.

June 2020:

(6/03) Defense Secretary Mike Esper stated he does not support invoking the "Insurrection Act" to deploy federal troops to quell violent protests.

(6/10) 12 states seeing increase in coronavirus cases.

(6/25) Two secret service agents tested positive following tRump rally in Tulsa, OK. Dozens of staff told to self-isolate.

(6/29) U.S. citizens cannot travel to Canada for leisure; coronavirus cases in Texas reaches 5,000/day and Gov. Abbot urges residents to wear a mask.

2,500,000 cases in U.S.

July 2020:

(7/03) Two Texas counties sent out alerts urging residents to stay-in-place.

tRump had a rally at Mt. Rushmore and no one wore a mask and practiced social distancing.

Don Jr. girlfriend Kimberly Gilfoyle and 1 of tRump's staff tested positive for COVID-19.

(7/4) 21 states requiring residents to wear masks outside (CNN). 

(7/6) FDA Chief Dr. Stephen Hahn announced he will not back tRump's prediction about a vaccine that will be ready by this year.

(7/13) At least 27 states have begun to shut down again, or to require face covering outside.

(7/18) tRump refuses to make mask wearing "mandatory" despite Dr. Anthony Fauci wanting it (CNN).

August 2020:

(8/20) 5.5M cases; 174,000 deaths.

September 2020:

(9/01) 6M cases; 184,000 deaths.

"Lenzilumab" antibody therapy reduced the risk of death by 80% in COVID-19 patients by CA biopharmaceutical company 'Humanigen.'

October 2020:

(10/02) tRump and Melania test positive for COVID-19.

(10/03) 10 people in tRump inner circle test positive for COVID-19.

(10/19) 70,000 new cases in one day; MI and VT saw improvement.

(10/23) 83, 010 cases reported in a day and in the past week there have been 441, 541 cases.

(10/25) 6 aides to Mike Pence tested positive for COVID-19.

(10/30) 94,000 cases in just 24 hours.

November 2020:

(11/01) 9M cases; 230,000 deaths.

(11/11) TX hits 1M cases.

(11/12) 160,000 cases in one day; 10.5M cases; 241,000 deaths.

(11/13) CA hits 1M cases.

(11/15) According to Johns Hoskins University the U.S. reached 11M cases.

(11/16) Moderna announced a vaccine that is 95% effective.

trump's legal team withdraws legal fraud lawsuits from PA, GA, WI, MI.

(11/18) tRump wants "recount" in WI.

(11/20) 12M cases; 250,000 deaths.

(11/23) U.S. vaccine Program announced vaccines may be ready by December 11.

(11/27) Joe Biden received 132 extra votes in Milwaukee, WI after tRump requested a "recount."

Robert Randle

December 7, 2020

Houston, TX 77063

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is the Republican political Party really racist?

It's time to set the record straight about Democrats and Republicans when it comes to civil/human rights of Black people, descended from slaves brought to American shores from the continent of Africa. The Democrat Party, comprised of Southern states, seceded from the Union, and fought to preserve chattel slavery. The Republican Party fought to end this inhumane practice. In fact, they started out in 1854 WI as the anti-slavery Whig Party, and fought to prevent slavery in the Northern Territories.

After the Union Army won the Civil War, Republicans amended the Constitution to grant newly freed slaves, freedom (13th Amendment); citizenship (14th Amendment); and the right to vote (15th Amendment). In response, Democrats passed Jim Crow laws in their local jurisdictions of southern states to deny Blacks their constitutional rights. The Republican-controlled Congress passed Civil Rights laws during the 1860's to guarantee Blacks the rights they were entitled to.

This legislation occurred during the period of "Reconstruction" under former Union General Ulysses S Grant (R) in 1868, backed by the "Radical" Republicans in Congress. Grant received votes from 450,000 freedmen. The "Moderate" Republican voices in Congress backed Democrat challenger, Horace Greeley. After the 1872 presidential election president Grant wanted more protection of Black rights. The Republican Party was more split along idealogical lines at this time; some who supported Black civil rights, and others who wanted more local self-governance in the South. "Liberal" Republicans backed Horace Greeley.

The presidential election of 1876 between Rutherford B Hayes (R) and Samuel J Tilden (D) was a turning point in American political history. During Reconstruction, federal troops remained in the South, however, in 1874, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, and Democrat support of the Republican president Hayes was conditioned on assurances that federal troops would not interfere in southern politics. At this time, Republicans controlled the states of SC, LA, and FL. In what was known as "the compromise of 1877" federal troops were withdrawn from All southern states; despite "Republican" protests over the treatment of Black voters.

When Grover Cleveland (D) became president in 1892, the Democrat Party took over both Houses of Congress, and in 1894 passed the Civil Rights Repeal Act; which overturned the civil rights laws of the 1860's. Although there were 3 Republican presidents following this time, from 1896-1912 (William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. Woodrow Wilson (D), who was a racist and segregationist became president in 1912, despite having large support from Black voters who thought he was a 'different' kind of politician.

Woodrow Wilson probably would not have become president if Theodore Roosevelt, who wanted to be re-elected, split the Republican Party; forming his own Bull Moose "(Progressive") political Party. Afterwards, there were another 3 Republican presidents from 1920-1928 (Warren G Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover). After 1928, the political landscape began to change as Democrats carried the 12 largest cities (in the North). 

The "Great Depression" started under Hoover, and not surprisingly, Franklin D Roosevelt (D) became president in 1932. Democrats also controlled Congress. The 1936 presidential election was a pivotal period for African-Americans, who had traditionally voted Republican, switched to FDR in "record numbers" with 71% support.

NOTE: FDR is the only president in United States political history to be elected to 4 terms (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). He died in office in 1945.

Harry S Truman (D) became president in 1948 against Thomas E Dewey (R), who, despite having a solid record on civil rights, tried to appeal more to White southern Conservatives. Truman received 77% of the Black vote and was the first president to desegregrate the military. The Democrat Party adopted a strong Civil Rights platform, however, southern delegates walked out, forming the States Rights Party ("Dixiecrats") of which such political figures were: George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd.

At this time, 40% of Blacks moved out of the South and lived in the North (mostly, NY, IL, PA, OH, and MI), which was about 1.6M people. Truman said that Northern Negroes were the road to the presidency. Former WWII General and Head of Columbia University, Dwight D Eisenhower (R) becane president in 1952 over Adlai E Stevenson (D). After his re-election in 1956, he said that "segregation" is a threat to national security and sent the 101st Airbourne to protect Black children going to segregated White schools in Arkansas. Eisenhower received 40% of the Black vote.

Let's fast forward a little further to the 1960's: It was Senator Everett Dirksen (R) who championed the Civil Rights legislation of 1957, 1964, 1965, and 1968; although reluctantly, at first, and was instrumental in getting it passed through Congress. Ironically, both John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson, as members of the Senate, "opposed" the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Senator Barry Goldwater (R) supported the Bill and opposed it in 1964 on Constitutional grounds because he felt it involved too much goverment overreach into local state jurisdictions; he later regretted that position until his dying day. Also, it was a little known fact that Goldwater was a lifelong member of the NAACP. 

John F Kennedy (D) was elected president in 1960, beating out Richard M Nixon (R), who basically held the "same" position on Civil Rights as JFK. Nixon, unlike JFK and LBJ, voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and received 32% of the Black vote. After JFK's assassination, Lyndon B Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964, and defeated him; receiving 94% of the Black vote. At this time "most" Blacks were prevented from voting in the south by "Jim Crow" Defacto laws by Democrat legislators or Dejure practices.

Goldwater wanted to eliminate Social Security, increase bombing in North Vietnam, and said that there is hardly a "difference" between Republican Conservatives and Southern Democrats. LBJ became the "first" president from a southern state since Andrew Jackson.

NOTE: After Barry Goldwater, Blacks fled the Republican Party in droves to the Democrats for good!!

In 1968, Richard M Nixon (R) ran for president against George McGovern (D), and won. At this time southern Democrats were responding favorably to Republican Party ideas about big business, less government regulation, personal responsibility, and government non-intervention in the matter of integration and school busing; as opposed to civil rights for Blacks. Despite Nixon's "Law and Order" mandate, he started the first 'Affirmative Action' groundwork with the 1969 "Philadelphia Plan" crafted by Black Republican Arthur Fletcher; which was intended to undo federal job discrimination policies by "Progressive" Democrat president Woodrow Wilson. 

The election of Jimmy Carter (D) as president over Gerald Ford (R) coincided with Democrat contol of Congress from 1968-1976. Carter received 83% of the Black vote as the Democrat Party tried to deepen ties with African-Americans. Ronald Reagan (R) served 2 terms as presudent (1980, 1984); and George H.W. Bush served 1 term before Bill Clinton (D) beat him in the 1992 presidential election. In 1996, Clinton ran against Bob Dole (R) of Kansas, and won re-election; although he only carried 4 southern states. 

In the following presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, the Democrat Party has NOT carried a single southern state-why?? Democrats have controlled the South for over 100 years, and Democrat policies in Black communities for well over the past 60 years have left behind impoverished, crime-infested, drug dealing, economically-devitalized urban jungles (da' hood), food insecure islands, high unemployment, failing schools in a social wasteland and crumbling infrastructure in cities like Detroit, South Chicago, and Baltimore. More cities could be added to the list; along with communities of color in states like, again, NY, IL, PA, OH, MI, etc. So, who are the Real 'racists'? I think the evidence is clear, however, it is up to you to decide for yourself.

Robert Randle

Houston, TX

November 20, 2020

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Is defunding the police the answer to racial injustice?

The death of George Floyd at the hands, or in this case, a knee on the back of the neck, by Minneapolis police officer David Chauvin has renewed the anguished cries to abolish police departments across America. This videotaped abuse of police authority in the Murder of a Black man who had no weapon and wasn't resisting officer commands was seen around the world, leading to demonstrations and violent protests. The discussions centering around racial disparity in the criminal justice system and reforming local police departments is not 'new' but what is different this time is all the talk about "defunding" or to some, abolishing police departments altogether. The death of yet another Black man by a White, male police officer has once again ignited a powder keg of racial tension between the P-O-L-I-C-E and communities of color; which is greatly strained and near the breaking point anyway.

Advocates of taking funding generally allocated to police departments and redistributing it in at-risk communities for drug treatment, mental health and other services has merit; but how practical is it in reality? Let's just say this does happen and police departments will be understaffed and overworked and underpaid officers are less likely to perform their job in a professional manner as the public expects. In fact, many offcers already work a second job to provide for their families just like those they are sworn to protect and serve. The few good and ethical officers will quit the force to get a better paying job elsewhere and what's left will be the kind of officers who have the mentality like those who killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice,  Jamar Clark, Philandro Castile, Stephon Clark, LaQuan McDonald, Eric Garner, Atatiana Jefferson; and others.

The better answer is to increase funding to police departments so that officers can receive the Best training in de-escalation techniques, psychological (implicit bias) testing, non-lethal arrest procedures, mental health specialists, and more focus on community outreach/liaison officers. The other part of this is what, and it pains me to admit this, what Conservatives say, namely; We as Black people have to the best of our ability, live morally responsibly and within the law. Even if this happens it still doesn't guarantee that there will not be contact with Law Enforcement. If this happens, no matter how inconvenient and uncomfortable the encounter may turn out, we have to keep our cool; follow officer's commands exactly because they are already on edge, anxious, and possibly trigger-happy. Don't give them a reason to get into a struggle with you or verbally assault them, which is justification for a 'legal' arrest.

Defunding the police is ONLY half the problem; the rest, and the other half, is up to us.

Robert Randle

10050 Westpark Dr Apt 1918

Houston, TX 77042

June 11, 2020

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Can a convicted Felon lose the Right to vote?

Crystal Mason was sentenced to 5 years in prison for illegally voting in the 2016 presidential election. Her attorneys will take the case before the Texas Court of Appeals and argue that she was wrongfully convicted and ask for a new trial. If the judges reject her request she will go to the State's highest Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Dallas Morning News had an article "Can felons vote in Texas? Sometimes" by reporter Jennifer Emily, which revealed the oftentimes arbitrary and inconsistent conditions or requirements which have to met in order for a felon to be "eligible" to vote; which is NOT necessarily the same thing as casting a vote on the ballot box.

Felons who pay their debt to society (probation, pardon, complete their sentence of incarceration) can register to vote but can't merely show up at a voting booth; they have to re-register?? Someone with a "final conviction" cannot even register to vote, so what exactly is that? Here is what it is NOT: a conviction on appeal; an indictment or merely prosecution for a crime; deferred adjudication (a type of probation that avoids a conviction if the person completes the terms required. Clear as glass; right!

Crystal Mason was already on probation from a federal tax fraud charge, and in addition to her case, the state of North Carolina convicted two felons who voted illegally; which brings up an important constitutional question: Can a Right guaranteed by the Constitution be revoked or diminished?

In Article 6, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) it stipulates that the Constitution is the Supreme "Law of the Land" and the 15th Amendment Section 1 says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Look up the word "abridged" in it's legal context. Also, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, when does committing a criminal act and labeled a felon deprive a person the Right guaranteed to them as a citizen? Once a Right is given it CANNOT be revoked under the Constitution. The State, or ANY jurisdiction, including Congress, cannot annul the privileges and immunities granted under the U.S. Constitution. It is quite surprising to me that such abuses have not been challenged in the Supreme Court or that the nation's highest judiciary would approve conduct which offends the Constitution.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 15, 2019
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
  

Wading into the murky same-sex marriage waters

It is difficult to weight into the debate over same-sex marriage without being accused of bigotry or hatred against homosexuals, especially if your views are rejected by those of the GLBT community and their defenders; but couldn’t the shoe fit on the other foot as well? I mean, gay people and their supporters can be just as vitriolic, disrespectful, aggressive, threatening, and prone to violence as their opponents. Setting aside for the moment, all the emotion and name-calling by both sides and taking a deep breath with a fresh air of ‘perspective’ might help to diffuse the explosive nature of this cultural time bomb. For starters, both sides are right and wrong and should admit culpability in polarizing segments of society to further advance their own particular self-interest. The Christian community and their political surrogates want to use the Bible to impose religious standards into civil law; especially it seems by selecting certain passages from the Old Testament (Genesis and Leviticus) as well as the New Testament (Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Jude). The thing is though; the Bible has a lot more to say about fornication and harlotry/prostitution that it does homosexuality (the word is not even a Bible term). So why aren’t Bible-toting believers railing against sexual exploitation (especially of the youth and women), voyeurism, prostitution,  pedophilia,  pornography,  nudity or adult-themed clubs/bars, magazines, television shows, and in movies as well as the pandering sales of erotic merchandise (sex toys and lingerie). Perhaps religious groups are actively involved in protesting against these offenders but it seems that their voices are the loudest or heard the most often when it pertains to same-sex relations; except maybe in the case of opposing the practice of abortion.

Now, the supporters of same-sex marriage make an appeal to history, archaeology or cultural anthropology to prove that homosexuality, or rather that relationships between members of the same sex/gender is not uncommon or an aberration because ancient civilizations have left behind ample records of such experiences. While that may very well be true, and doubtless one of more famous Greek philosophers in times past might have been involved with a male (“catamite”) to service his needs, or even among some modern Native American or African tribes such practices have doubtless been performed, still one has to ask if these groups or any society recognized, legitimized or promoted same-sex or gender neutral “marriage” as the term is employed today? In the case of Greek society in the time of Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato it would be quite plausible to believe that one of the great thinkers of the age could have had a male lover/servant (slave) who resided with his employer. I suppose that the person could be included in a will by their benefactor and legally inherit property but that doesn’t constitute conveyance of marital privileges or rights. In tribal societies there could have been a more presumably egalitarian social structure where gender identity was not limited to a strictly ‘binary’ construct of male/female; biologically speaking. There could  be male, female, feminine male, or masculine female and within each distinctive group, rankings and privileges according to the needs, rules and customs of the people in that communal group. I think in many if not most of the cases, the male person had what was called “two spirits”(masculine/feminine or androgynous) and was seen more or less as a ‘special’ gift that was conveyed upon a shaman/priest/witchdoctor that was chosen to be in contact with the unseen supernatural world (ancestor spirits, animal spirits, gods [good/evil]). This person would be revered or feared and as a result due in part of his/her ‘peculiar’ nature, could have and enjoy the use of a same-sex male/male domestic relationship [variable or temporary/permanent].

The question to be asked is whether in ‘any’ previous human community, tribe, clan, society, culture, city-state, nation, or empire was there ever such as thing as the consummation of marriage that involved a same-sex couple (male/male or female/female)? Not only that, but even among the people who had such relations were those who engaged in this lifestyle were they a tiny minority or a significant part of the population? I mean, if it was normative then they would have constituted a larger part of the social environment; and did they, or do we/can we know for sure? I know I am getting into hot water here but I have to chance it- but what about conjugal privilege and procreation? This last part serves as a perfect segue into one of the most divisive parts of the entire argument, namely the ‘sexuality’ component. The religionists, moralists and social conservatives place too much emphasis on public displays of affection (PDA) among gay couples and what they do or how they do what they do behind closed doors. On the other hand, to disagree with my gay friends, there is no “equivalent” or “sameness” in what a man and woman do in romantic coupling in comparison to that of man/man or woman/woman intimate sexual contact. I believe the “only” thing that is not different between a heterosexual and homosexual couple is when it pertains to L-O-V-E, because it has no boundaries or limitations based on gender, sex, social rules, legal regulations, etc.

Lastly, I sympathize with a gay couple who want the religious sanction or sacrament of marriage just as much as certain legal rights upon receiving a marriage certificate issued by the state conveying such privileges authorized by law (state and federal). Just as marriage is more than procreation it has its socio-cultural historical significance and importance in religious ceremony and ritual as solemnizing the male/female pair as husband and wife, bride and groom; or using other such endearing terms and associational cognates. There is something special about that pronouncement and I don’t know if it can be replicated in invoking the wishes or goodwill upon a same-sex couple as spouse and spouse or just calling them as simply, ‘married.’ Another thorny issue is when gay couples adopt children, and because this is relatively new there are no longitudinal studies to determine the impact on young minds from being reared in same-sex households. How would a male be affected by two male parents where he would refer to both men as his father? How would a female react in the same situation and is she affected differently, especially if she were the boy’s sister? Conversely, how would a female be affected by having two moms; what about a male; or what if they were both raised by the women parents and is the girl going to be affected differently than her brother?

These are open-ended questions and concerns that Social Psychologists, Pediatricians, the AMA, ASCP, Congress, the Supreme Court, state legislatures and religious scholars may be woefully unable to answer, but the one thing is certain is that when we shout so loud as to drown out the other’s voice, while at the same time plugging up our own ears we will never be able to clearly and unbiasedly consider alternative points of view; but then again, maybe this was the goal all along.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
April 8, 2014
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Response to "The Mueller Report" by Alan Dershowitz

Famed Harvard professor and part of O.J. Simpson's Murder Trial "Dream Team" appeared on ABC's "The View" on May 2, 2019 to promote his book, "The Mueller Report." In an excerpt in Section D. The Report: Obstruction of Justice Dershowitz sets out to explain the elements of a crime, where every crime requires both an actus reus (a criminal act) and a mens rea (an unlawful; a corrupt intent). He goes on to say that you must first establish an illegal act. The ancient principle of nulla poena sine lege means that no one can be punished for doing an act that is not prohibited by law. However, an act might not be unlawful but it does not necessarily make it lawful.

Applying the principle of Obstruction of Justice, president Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey leads to the question of exercising the authority of the Chief Executive under Article II of the Constitution. Dershowitz doesn't believe that the motive or intent in doing so matters; ONLY the fact that he can. President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinburger as an example, but it doesn't seem to apply in this particular case to me. Dershowitz contends that Mueller misinterpreted Constitutional Law in a section entitled: Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice where Mueller stated that the first element of obstruction is "an obstructive act." Perhaps Alan Dershowitz should have familiarized himself with 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which states:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

This statute refers to the act; without consideration to intent. Continuing further in his copied excerpt; Dershowitz says: The [Mueller] report cites a handful of lower-court cases, all wrongly decided in my view, for the proposition that “an improper motive can render an actor’s conduct criminal even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor’s authority.” (Disclaimer: I litigated one of those cases.) This wrongheaded conclusion contradicts hundreds of years of precedents requiring that the act itself must be unlawful -- the concept of actus rea discussed above -- and that an improper motive cannot convert a lawful act into a crime.

The Mueller Report correctly concludes that there are no Supreme Court decisions or even Department of Justice positions that directly resolve the issue of whether “the president’s exercises of his constitutional authority to terminate an FBI director and to close investigations” can constitutionally constitute an obstruction of justice. In every case this is true and there is the standing DOJ guidelines against bringing charges against a president while in office. However, if the president is the "subject" of the investigation can he use the power of his office to terminate that investigation; to infect or undermine its legitimacy and legality? Dershowitz completely misses the point, or is he trying misdirection or obfuscation by continually referring to the broader issue of presidential authority to fire someone as opposed to the narrow and specific 'act' done, not as a matter of prerogative or discretion, but as a means to subvert a legitimate investigation into whether president Trump violated federal law; or encouraged others to do so, such as lying to the FBI or Congress.

Dershowitz continues in this copied excerpt: The Mueller Report seems to agree, saying that “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence. . . .” But that is not what President Trump has been accused of by the Mueller Report. What he is accused of -- especially in firing Comey -- is far more analogous to the pardoning decision made by President Bush. This is also not correct because, whether Mueller mentioned it or not, the statements by Trump himself based on the
following:

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'."

Dershowitz concludes by saying as a civil libertarian who cares deeply about the fair application of the rule of law to all, I have tried to apply neutral, nonpartisan principles to my analysis of the legal and civil liberties issues surrounding this investigation. I have refused to substitute partisan wishful thinking for neutral analysis of the law and facts. I have refused to substitute partisan wishful thinking for neutral analysis of the law and facts. I think that Law professor and Attorney Dershowitz is not as impartial as he claims and ignores a pattern of behavior based on actions and statements by president Trump that meets the 'reasonableness' threshold that supports a violation of federal law. Even the encouragement of others to commit illegal acts, regardless of whether they did or not, constitutes "intent." The notion that the Mueller Report totally exonerates president Trump is nonsense. The ONLY thing that it concludes is that Trump cannot be proven guilty of Collusion; which is NOT a crime in the legal sense of the word. What is concerning is that Mueller DID find over 10 instances of 'potential' Obstruction of Justice incidents, which he left it up to Congress to decide what to do. 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

May 2, 2019

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

It seems WA State teachers strikes becoming all too familiar

The next most difficult and challenging profession to being a parent is teaching. It goes without saying that anyone who takes upon themselves the commitment and responsibility for teaching our youth should be well-paid, but how do you determine adequate compensation? The WA State McCleary decision of January 2012 mandated the state fully fund K-12 public schools, as required by Article IX of the state Constitution; which includes 1 billion dollars for teacher salaries.

The minimum requirement to qualify for a teacher is a Bachelor's degree and earning a starting salary of $53,353. The earnings vary by city, county, school district or population. Edmonds has a population of 42,623 but the starting teacher salary is $58,262. Mukilteo 's population is 22,034 with a starting salary of $67,540. Contrast this with a Seattle population of 776,013 and a teacher salary of $59,174; and the median income is $38,211 in King County. Is this adequate? Puyallup teachers are on strike but the average income in Pierce County is $27,446 and the city of Tacoma, with a population of 218,511 pays teachers $53,611.

The average teacher salary across the entire U.S. is $58,950 but the starting salary is $38,617; so the issue is more about not being competitive with other industries in the private sector or working for state or federal agencies.That is always an option, and doubtless some teachers could get a job but many of them might not because their particular degree, experience or skill set might not be in demand. I wonder if the education of our children is not being politicized by the teachers unions and the real victims in all of this are our kids. There is something wrong in our society when every few years teachers walk the picket lines. Is it the teachers, their unions, the state department of education, or the politicians? In the meantime, thousands of schoolchildren would be waiting and want to be in class.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

September 7, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Is president Trump and Evangelical supporters on the wrong side of the Immigration debate?

Donald Trump as president-Elect promised to build a Wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. A little over a year and nothing but a few larger-than-life pillars, but no 'wall.' And besides all that, our southernmost neighbor says they aren't going to pay for it. The thing is, though, militarizing our borders is not the answer and setting immigration policy is the purview of Congress (Article 1, Section 8); not by presidential Executive Order. “Wikipedia” mentions that the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) administered federal immigration laws and regulations including the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8, United States Code). 

In the early 1900s Congress's primary interest in immigration was to protect American workers and wages. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was formed in 1933 by a merger of the Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of Naturalization; both agencies were under the Department of Labor. President Franklin Roosevelt moved the INS from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice in 1940. On March 1, 2003, most of the INS functions ceased to exist, becoming 3 new entities as they are today- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – within the newly created Department of Homeland Security. 

Now that the historical part of immigration has been established, let's look at some passages from the Old Testament for the benefit of Christian Evangelicals who don't support amnesty for DACA (“Dreamers”) as well as are hardened to the breakup of families and want protection from dangerous persons (criminals, drug dealers, rapists), migrant laborers, hospitality industry/service workers).

Genesis 20: 1

Abraham moved south to the Negev and lived for a while between Kadesh and Shur, and then he moved on to Gerar. While living there as a foreigner (undocumented illegal/resident alien). NLT

Genesis 21: 34

After this, Abraham resided as a foreigner in Philistine territory for a long period of time. ISV

Exodus 12: 49

The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you." NIV

Exodus 22: 21

"You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners (illegal aliens) in the land of Egypt. NLT

Leviticus 19: 33-34a

‘When a stranger (foreigner/illegal alien) resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong (injustice).‘The stranger (legal resident/undocumented citizen??) who resides with you shall be to you as the native (or naturalized citizen; in the modern sense) among you,

Deuteronomy 24: 14

"Never take advantage of poor and destitute laborers, whether they are fellow Israelites or foreigners living in your towns. NLT

Deuteronomy 27: 19

'The one who denies justice to a resident alien, a fatherless child, or a widow is cursed.' And all the people will say, 'Amen!' CSB

1 Chronicles 22: 2

So David gave orders to gather the foreigners who were in the land of Israel, and he set stone cutters to hew out stones to build the house of God.

NOTE: Some of these resident aliens were highly skilled Masons, which means they knew mathematics, engineering, architectural drawing, blueprint reading, calculus and not criminals or low-skilled manual laborers.

2 Chronicles 2: 17

Then Solomon counted all the resident aliens who were in the land of Israel, after the census of them that David his father had taken, and there were found 153,600. ESV

NOTE: Resident/illegal aliens were not “undocumented citizens” as they were included in the national census; sounds like prudent government policy to a wise King Solomon.

REFERENCE

Eastons Bible Dictionary:

Alien

a foreigner, or person born in another country, and therefore not entitled to the rights and privileges [as a native/indigenous citizen or resident] of the country where he resides.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

April 5, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Gun control and using good moral judgment

I think one of the issues regarding sensible gun control is whether someone is responsible enough to own a gun. It is not about an age requirement or having a mental illness, but how do you determine if a person has the social maturity? Owning a gun means that you are saying that you are willing to take a human life; to kill someone in a situation where there is a threat of serious bodily injury or to preserve and protect life.

You are saying that there was no reasonable alternative and that such a dire act was necessary; barring any other duty to retreat or mitigate the situation, that such an effort failed or was impractical or impossible. You are admitting that you can make a split-second Life and Death decision without premeditation, malice, intent, recklessness, or negligently AND that you can live with the consequences without any apology or second-guessing; with a 'clear conscience' and in a similar situation, would do exactly the same thing.

ADDENDUM:

Nine Reasons to own a gun/firearm:

1. The Second Amendment.

2. It is my God-given right.

3. I belong to a hunter-gather society/culture and do so for survival.

4. To fight off a Martian invasion.

5. To hunt animals for sport.

6. To protect personal property.

7. I want to be armed for the coming “Race war” between Blacks and Whites.

8. To protect life or against serious personal/bodily injury.

9. For no other reason but, simply because I can and want to.

There is no test, qualification or legislation that can determine who will exercise 'reasonable' moral judgment/discernment under duress and stress when confronted with a life and death decision. Police officers are specially trained in the use of firearms but even they make mistakes. It is one thing to hit the bulls eye or near center mass on a cardboard target that is not shooting back, but it is quite another when facing a situation where a weapon is directed towards you which could end your life. If law enforcement officials, who face unknown, unpredictable, dangerous and potentially dangerous situations on a daily basis, fail to always act rationally, then how can the average citizen be expected to do so? It is not about the NRA, Congress, your family and friends, but you. Can you pass the test or do you even want to take it? There are no make-up exams because once you fail this test, somebody dies; do you want this on your conscience for the rest of your life? You decide.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

March 27, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Time-traveler's claim just a big waste of Time?

A video of a time traveler claiming to be from the year 6000 AD was on ApexTV lately. He says: Human government will cease to exist in 6000 AD. This is going to really upset those Christian believers who are looking for “The Rapture” and Jesus' return soon (in this generation). It seems that A.I. units takes over human government because they are more efficient and do not make emotion-based decisions. I can think of several movies about the machines taking over. I wonder how much shares of stock in A.I. start-up companies will be worth in four-thousand years? Humans will achieve near-immortality by downloading their consciousness in computers or virtual reality worlds (sounds familiar??). I suppose this is an option or alternative of going to Heaven or Hell after death?

Humans and cities will be shrunk down. I guess it's more efficient and economical that way, and resources last longer. This sounds like someone met the living-computer called “Brainiac” from Superman's (Kal-El) planet Krypton, who's LEVEL-10 super-intelligence created a shrinking ray, unleashing it on the city and inhabitants of 'Kandor.' Either that, or someone stole the formula of Dr. Henry Pym's “Pym particles” (used by Ant-Man/Giant-Man). As proof of time-travel the visitor provided a hazy-looking photo, supposedly showing a futuristic city but says time-travel distorted the picture. He might have had me convinced up until that point. Four-thousand years of advancement and he could not preserve photographic evidence or other proof except a fuzzy picture that even the technology of today could do a better job.

He brought no scientific devices or instruments from the future; not even a data recorder; something or anything that might have made his claims more believable. He did not even say if Donald Trump would be reelected as POTUS, or not. I guess we'll just have to wait for the next time-traveler to show up, or until the year 2028, when according to this visitor from the future, the government will finally reveal its time-traveling program; something to look forward to; I guess. Oh, I almost forgot, since he's from the future, he knows, or should know I am writing this article, so if he wants to prove me wrong, I am waiting. Well, nothing yet; so, I guess I'm right, then.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt 701

Tacoma, WA 98402

February 19, 2018

robertrandle51@yahoo.com