The President Doesn't Have a "Right of Visit and Search"

 The "right of visit and search" that President Trump is declaring he has to search innocent vessels is a right only extended during a war. The U.S. Congress is the only American entity that can declare war on a nation, and it has not declared war on Iran. It could be argued NATO also has this right, but most of the NATO countries do not support a war with Iran. Any visiting and searching of vessels that our Navy does will be done illegally. Oh, and although pirate ships also fall under this right, if we board any ship and it isn't a pirate ship, we have to make compensation to that ships owners and nation.

Some Americans have jumped on the "no nuclear enrichment for Iran" without apparently realizing that this would mean Iran can't use nuclear power. It would also mean Iran could not establish data centers, among other things--but presumably if they did this they would be more intelligent and limit theirs, unlike the U.S., which has 4000+ (no other country has 1/10 that). 

When will other countries realize that this is all about money and stock manipulation (see my other post). Leaders like Netanyahu and Trump, who have no hope of being re-elected are grasping at straws and hoping to at least make themselves a nice nest egg before they must permanently leave politics. The U.S., unfortunately, has no laws against our elected leaders dabbling in the stock market and doing insider trading--it's only those under them. 

The U.S. didn't want Russia to get nuclear bombs either. Our leaders told us it would be the end of the world because those crazy Russians would kill us. Thus, the decades long Cold War. 

Ironically, of the nine countries who have nuclear bombs, the United States is the only one to use one and they some how have justified the fact that they only used it on civilian populations who were completely unsuspecting and who had no bomb warnings or shelters that could protect them. This is similar to how we convinced Americans that it was a great thing we were able to destroy an Iranian ship--their best ship, without expanding on the fact that the only reason that ship was there was because it was participating in war games with the United States and was there under a peace treaty. No, we shot them in the back as soon as they were heading home, while they were completely unsuspecting. We are just like Epstein--we play a simple war game and make other countries think we're just a friendly country before screwing them. 

In actuality, the only thing Russia getting nuclear weapons did was stop us from using them again. Granted, with our trigger happy President and his henchman Hegseth, we may start bombing everyone again. We are already only hurting civilians in Iran, just as Israel is primarily targeting civilians in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel is absolutely correct in that the world has forgotten the history of WWII. Now, just as then, Hitler was allowed to do what he wanted and took over SEVERAL countries before the rest of the world even told him to stop!! That is exactly what Israel and the United States are doing while everyone looks the other way. 

America--No Longer a Democratic Republic

The Founding Fathers of the United States set up a clear system of checks and balances between Congress, the Courts, and the President. However, since that start, we have been eroding that balance. At first, it was the switch from senators being elected by state legislature to being directly elected. By the early 1900s, it was further eroded by excluding or making it nearly impossible for third parties and independents to get on state ballots. Since NATO, Congress has slowly given up its sole right to declare war and has looked the other way as presidents executive ordered their way around things. 

In the past ten years, Americans have seen government supported online censorship and AI-algorithms that intentionally censor certain topics or create a soundbox where people only see information they support pushed back at them--making them more likely to believe false theories as they see them promoted over and over again. 

I in no way shape or form believe Trump is like Hitler, but he certainly seems to be trying for that image right now. There are a few similarities. When Hitler invaded Austria, the rest of the world looked the other way and claimed Austria wanted it. (Obviously,  The Story of the Trapp Family Singers had not been published, but one would think governments might have realized no country in the history of the world has ever been like, "Oh-oh-oh!! Colonize me!! Please! Please! Please!" It took several countries before the rest of the world was like, "Hmmm, maybe we shouldn't let him go unchecked like that." Now, we are invading many countries and setting up puppet governments. This is no different than colonizing them.

The United States has also been selling its balanced government to its intelligence agencies--as have most countries. If you think about it, no agency should ever be doing something so secret that its country's leaders are not told about it, but that is what our intelligence agencies have been doing for over half a century. I am not talking about military intelligence, which I believe is very important, but this is general intelligence operating outside the military. U.S. agencies were staffed with Nazi's who were basically given pardons for their war crimes if they came and worked for our government--including in research, teaching, and intelligence areas. What did these people who apparently had no problem acting outside the laws do? Well, one of the main jobs of our intelligence agencies have been to take over other countries and interfere in their elections--all in the name of "democracy." The also form alliances and share information with the intelligence agencies of other nations. 

Now, congress has become obsolete. The people who have been in are apparently too old and too tired to care that Trump will spend $1 trillion every three months just to invade and put a puppet government in Iran, Venezuela, and other countries. The puppet government in Ecuador has already been there for a while. Hegseth talks about the Monroe Doctrine while ignoring that we can't have troops around the world, start a war with Iran, taunt China in its own waters and train troops for Ukraine if we are following the Monroe Doctrine. He isn't practicing the Monroe Doctrine--he's empire building, which is in complete opposition to the Monroe Doctrine.

While Trump lets Hegseth do whatever he wants, Congress lets Trump do whatever he wants. Why? I think they believe they can escape the American wrath by pushing it all on Trump. But a Congress that ignores Trump is a Congress that supports him. A Congress that refuses to act when the people of the United States want them to act is a useless instrument.

In my opinion, Trump is more like Chairman Mao. He has surrounded himself with his own soundbox that tells him what he wants to hear. But when the U.S. Navy has to attack a ship that was granted protection to participate in a military display with the United States by India, that doesn't show a strong military. That shows a military that is so broken and defunct it can only attack dirty or risk losing. If that ship had been aware it was not protected, we would not have murdered the people on it so easily. In fact, as much as I am glad we aren't putting boots on the ground, not doing so shows how afraid our leadership is that it will get its butt kicked.

Will the American people care enough to vote for and run as independents to get these good-ol'-boys out and get real people in? I hope so, but it might be too late. Terrorists have struck American soil before, and Iran is reportedly the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, but our leaders think attacking their country and taking out their leaders is fair game. This time, however, we are working with an underpaid military made up of mostly new rejects so they can meet their recruiting goals. It is spread across the world and the U.S., and we just took out a beloved religious leader. 

The Noble committee showed wisdom beyond Trump's bluffs about ending wars (that actually are still going on). Instead of going down as the President of Peace, he will go down in history as the President who was responsible for World War III while Congress looked the other way. 

Why Isn't Hunter Biden Being Charged Under Same Law the Attorney General Is Charging Trump?

 So, before the Supreme Court is whether or not the Attorney General can charge people who participated in the January 6 protest with 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. This code specifically relates to congressional investigations--or inquiries, such as the one where Congress is investigating Hunter Biden. Now, as most of is know, Congress was not performing an inquiry January 6, but certifying the 2020 election. So, whether this law applies to January 6 is up in the air (and it probably doesn't). 

However, the Hunter Biden investigation is an inquiry. The pertinent portion of the law says: "

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 exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House...of the Congress—"

Well, Congress wants to privately interview Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is trying to influence them and has told them he will not show up unless they have an open interview. That right there is him trying to influence the inquiry. He doesn't want to do it the way Congress wants to do it, and he has follow through on his threats by not showing up and impeding the process. I mean he didn't just send a letter--he went on the news and told Congress he wasn't coming unless they did it his way. Now, Congress didn't cave, but they don't have to. The act of attempting to influence them is enough as the law is written. Anyone want to explain why he isn't be prosecuted? 

Crucifying a Conservative Black Man--Just in Time for Easter

 Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court's ONLY black man, is being crucified in the news this week because he happened to have a rich conservative friend (gasp--a conservative has a conservative friend) with whom he went on vacations. No where in the judicial code does it say that Supreme Court Justices (or any judges for that matter) cannot have friends, attend parties, or go on vacations with other like-minded people. In fact, Courts across the nation have ruled that you must get your paycheck from a Plaintiff/Defendant or someone who could be a Plaintiff/Defendant in the case or one on a similar subject matter in order to recuse. They have also ruled that if you were put in your position by one of the Plaintiff/Defendants, (i.e. if someone made large donations to your election or re-election campaign), you also should recuse. Justices do not even have to disclose their financial information. But Clarence Thomas wasn't involved in an election campaign and the person he was vacationing with has never, to the best of my knowledge, been before him in  a legal case. Remember that.

The Code of Conduct for Judges also specifically states that a Judge cannot publicly give his or her opinion on a case prior to it coming before the judge, the judge reviewing the evidence from both sides, and then the judge officially giving his/her ruling. So, why wasn't RBG impeached or at least threatened with impeachment as Clarence Thomas is being threatened with impeachment? Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) performed several gay marriages and attended both the wedding (obviously) and the party afterward--PRIOR TO RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL. When the case came before her, she didn't even think about recusing despite the clear guidelines that she must do so. Again, Clarence Thomas is a conservative black man. RBG was a liberal white woman. Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a rich, outspoken conservative. At no point did he discuss any of his cases or publicly make statements about them prior to deciding them based only on the evidence before him and the law. RBG, on the other hand, publicly supported gay marriages and performed them even when they were not legal, but her failure to recuse went by silently.

But let's talk about another judge who hasn't recused--probably the reason everyone is trying to crucify Clarence Thomas--so people don't talk about him. Let's talk about Justice Juan Merchan. In New York, you see, this judge was put into his position directly by the Democratic Party. That's right, in New York, home of Tammany Hall--the poster child of political corruption. Now, there are 136 judges in New York that are supposed to randomly get cases. Justice Juan Merchan has remarkably managed to draw 4 separate Trump cases and have them assigned to him in just a couple years. Please correct my math if its wrong, but that's like 3 in 1 billion odds. For comparison, in 2021, 65,000 criminal cases were filed during the entire year across the entire United States in the Federal Court System. Why isn't anyone questioning this? 

I am willing to say that a judge put in place by the Democrats could rule in an unbiased manner against someone the Democrats loath and absolutely do not want running for office in the next election, but I start to waver on that when I look at Trump's current indictment. Justice Juan Merchan allowed Trump to be indicted for 39 counts of hiding criminal actions. The problem is that Trump was not indicted for said CRIMINAL ACTIONS. How can a person be indicted for hiding criminal actions without BEING INDICTED FOR THOSE ACTIONS? The district attorney brought absolutely no other criminal charges. If Trump was hiding a crime, why wasn't he charged with that crime? If you don't have enough evidence that he committed one or more crimes, why in the world are you charging him with anything? 

Well, that's simple--although it is something that most unbiased courts frown upon. During court discovery, the Prosecuting attorney can ask for pretty much anything and Trump has to give it to him or try to get the judge to agree that the Prosecuting attorney doesn't need it. Now, imagine that every single detail of your life could be brought into a lawsuit--that little monitor in your car that records your speed wherever you go, for example, or all your checkbook records, your personal diary, your calendars...Can you say you have never broken a single law in all your life? Most people don't even read and know all the laws. So, if the judge doesn't stop it, the prosecuting attorney can go on a fishing expedition. And even if he doesn't find anything, he can still say Trump was hiding criminal intent and did it so well there isn't evidence of the actual crime. That's not the way the courts are supposed to work, but the case should have been thrown out from the beginning unless the prosecutor charged Trump with an actual crime that he was hiding. That Justice Juan Merchan did not do that is what makes me believe he should recuse. When that is added to all the other information about him, I question whether he could rule against the wishes of the party that put him in office. 

But Clarence Thomas going on vacation with friends is the topic of the poor news agencies this week. For them, Justice Juan Merchan is a hero, just as RBG was. I, personally, would like MORE black men on our Supreme Court. I fail to understand how going on vacation with a like-minded person could influence you in any way as a judge. You already agree on most topics--so where is the influence?

Yes, the Bible Specifically Mentions COVID-19 Vaccines Are Prohibited

I read today in the Atlantic that the Bible does not specifically mention a prohibitions against vaccines. According to them this leaves religious leaders scrambling to find reason for a religious exemption, and they also believe lawmakers should not grant one on religious basis. First, what a person believes the Bible says is their religion--it is not up to the Atlantic or any lawmaker to say just because they read something differently it does not qualify for religious exemption.

Second, the Atlantic, a journal I respect but which is clearly left leaning most of the time, has completely erred due to its ignorance of both the Bible and COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines (except for two developed in China) are not simply dead COVID-19 viruses. Covid-19 vaccines are a mixture of mRNA viruses (they won't tell us which ones) and COVID-19 virus spikes. Some are a mixture of adenoviruses and coronaviruses. If viruses were alive, they would be mixing two different species of viruses to create this. God has specifically forbidden such mixing in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 20:11. If they wish to argue that is Old Testament, Jesus specifically stated not one dot shall pass away from the law in Matthew 5:18. Further, 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 says that even if you are strong enough to eat meat forbidden by the Old Testament, if your brother is not and you eat meat forbidden in front of him, you are responsible for his fall. 

In short, no minister or Christian should be grasping for a Biblical reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccines--especially since they do not prevent anyone from getting COVID-19, do not prevent anyone from spreading COVID-19, and come with side effects. The Bible specifically warned us against creating these vaccines, just as it has warned us not to stick human genes in flies eyes among other things secular scientists do. Ministers promoting vaccination and shaming those whose conscience prevents them from doing so are the ones who will have to bring their case before God.

The United States Democrats Orchestrated the Largest Human Rights Violation and Voter Fraud in History--and It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNTING VOTES

 The Freedom of Speech is an American's first amendment right. In past years, "fact checkers" have sprung up everywhere. Now, originally THE fact checking organization was Snopes, but even they started to have problems. Fact checking organizations were, for the most part, harmless when it came to free speech. People still had the right to speak out and say what they believed and those reading or hearing their message were able to do their own fact checking using their preferred fact checking organization. 

By freedom of speech, anyone should have the ability to say anything about anyone else, unless what they say is a direct threat to another person. For example, a person who says "I want to kill XXX" should be investigated. Detailed plans on how to kill yourself or others should also be removed. 

The problem with this election is that the Democrats moved direct threats into a gray area. It started with COVID-19--no one, even scientists who have for centuries been openly debating ideas as a part of the scientific process, was allowed to publicly say anything different from the mainstream because it "might" put someone's lives at risk. The problem is that the CDC stopped putting out good information and started putting out garbage--even going against National Academy of Sciences advice on masks. Once this freedom of Speech was taken away without any formal protests, it moved to the next level.

Nancy Pelosi told FB and other social media to censor President Trump if he made ANY negative statements about her or other female Democrats because they would interpret that as direct attacks on women. This took away President Trump's freedom of speech, and as it has always been, once they took away someone's right to free speech they began to expand that power. FB and other agencies employed "fact checkers" that selectively silenced not only President Trump's voice, but also the voices of many Republicans. It is for this reason that I refused to vote for a single Democrat this year--a first to the best of my knowledge. I refuse to support a party that prohibits free Speech. 

How can you run for a political office without being allowed to say anything inflammatory about the other side or good about the things you have done especially when the other side is allowed to tell whatever lies they want about you? This is one reason why the Democrats thought they would win by a landslide. The problem is they did not stop their Human Rights violations there. 

The Democrats then petitioned to get the Green Party and Socialist Parties off the ballots in several states. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Green Party collected more than the required signatures in time (8,000+ when they only needed 5,000). The signature of the elected vice-president was not on an affidavit switching her out for the stand in vice president. Now, either this woman should have been allowed a chance to sign the paper or the stand in vice president should have gone on the ballot. Instead, the Democrats and the Democrat controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to allow the Green Party Ballot Access. Ballot Access is already a trampled right in America. In Wisconsin, it was even worse. The Green Party filed a lawsuit 2 weeks after being told they could not be on the ballot there, and the judge threw it out because it wasn't filed in a "timely" manner. For most other things, you have at least 30 days to file against things. Michigan locked down, and when the Socialist Party asked to have the 30,000 required signatures reduced because of the difficulty of collecting during lockdown, they were denied this request. Democrats and Republicans in Michigan only had to get less than 12,000 signatures to be on the ballot.

American Political Third-Parties need equal access to ALL BALLOTS. There needs to be a federal law stating that (1) it is illegal to deny access to any party who has not previously appeared on a ballot and (2) all political parties must be subject to the SAME ballot laws. Unfortunately, Democrats were elected by their blind followers. 

Unfortunately, Democrats are still blind to the fact that the Democrat party has decided to trample rights akin to China. Chinese people do not get to vote because they only have one party for whom they can vote. Democrats denying ballot access is a step in that direction. Chinese people do not have freedom of Speech. They are not allowed to say anything against the ruling party. 

Now, before you argue that the Republicans are equally bad you should know (1) Republicans helped pay court fees so the Green Party could fight to get back on the ballot in court and (Republicans did not try to get Libertarians off the ballot until it was too late (i.e. they started the process after getting the idea from Democrats). 

As long as people continue to support Republican and Democrat nominees and their myriad of laws against third parties, Americans will never get a choice. Third parties have been getting more and more of the vote and in some cases beating Democrat challengers. These partisan laws need to be removed from the books and equal ballot access needs to be required throughout the United States. Third-parties need to start at lower levels (which are even more difficult to get ballot access for). They need to challenge unfair discrimination in ballot access laws in court. It is not a coincidence that once third parties started getting significant numbers Democrats decided to remove them and Republicans followed suit. 

Those Who Support Free Speech Should Drop Twitter

 Twitter banned the President's account for stating facts. The President's posts this year that have stated other facts have been removed. 

For some reason, we don't want Russia posting truth about our candidates nor do we want our President posting facts about the opposing side. Hunter Biden got a job that paid $80,000 per year (among other jobs) because he was Joe Biden's son.

Former President Bush actually gave Hunter Biden a job on a Railroad safety board back during his Presidency. This was another job that Hunter himself stated he got because his dad was Joe Biden. Perhaps this is why Bush does not vote for or back President Trump. President Trump is allowing investigations into Epstein; Prince Andrew was buddies with Epstein, and Prince William backs Biden (whom presumably will stop the investigations). 

Now, I will tell you right here that I did not vote for President Trump in the last election. I don't like President Trump's attitudes or most of his Twitter activity. But I do support free speech. And blocking the President from giving facts on an account that was followed by many, is wrong. Americans already are facing enormous Social Media censorship because Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats threatened them if they did not censor President Trump and his supporters. This is not the American way. We have free speech even if others do not like that speech as long as it doesn't put anyone in danger. 

Whether you are an American or not, whether you are a Republican or not, you have to take a stand against this censorship, or YOUR VOICE might be the next one banned. Close your Twitter accounts in protest and find other outlets that allow free speech to use. 

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:

 The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.

You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:

Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl

Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB

Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so. 

I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready. 

The Bad State of NY Healthcare Revealed with COVID-19

People are trying to make excuses for New York: It's a big city... It got COVID-19 from Europe, not China...

But the fact is, that NY just has lousy healthcare. I feel sorry for the people who live there. For comparison, California has 39.5 millionish people in the state and only 28,899 cases of COVID-19. 1021 people have died there from the virus. California was one the the first states to lockdown their entire state on March 20, 2020, and right after that, like every other place that has gone on lockdown, their new case numbers began a much steeper climb to the top. Testing was increased back around March 1, so that was not a good reason for rates to skyrocket, in my opinion, but it is what it is. We will never accurately see what COVID-19 is doing until we stop putting money into quarantine and start putting money into testing and improving healthcare access among the poor, especially those making 135%-180% federal poverty income levels, which basically screws them out of any state healthcare aid (even something like HIP-2.0, where they pay small premiums for Medicaid.)

But at least California, skyrocketing as it is, is not NY. NY has a population of only 19.5 million. A little less than half the population of CA. New York's numbers are disgusting, though: 126,383 as of the same day I took CA's stats. New York also has 8448 deaths. In one instance, it was reported they stored at least 10 COVID-19 dead bodies in a nursing home. Is it any wonder they have so many cases? Apparently, they are truly trying to re-enact the 1300s. They also have been blowing up the lungs of COVID-19 patients and increasing their chances of bacterial pneumonia by putting them on ventilators when all they need is an Oxygen mask. This is something the Chinese tried to explain to us in February in a published paper, but we didn't listen.

And now people are protesting these lockdowns and the governor of MI actually said they were blocking ambulances. Really? All the hospitals I have seen on a map of Lansing were outside the protest area. An ambulance driver would need to deliberately reroute through the area (out of the way) to get to them. Not surprisingly, I saw no ambulances blocked in any news footage. I also saw a news agency claim the protesters were racist and carrying Confederate flags... so I looked. The only thing I saw was blue President Trump flags, Don't Tread on Me Flags, and USA flags from 2020. Sorry. Neither of those resemble the Confederate flag. I did see a lot of camo... but really? Its Michigan. Do they have anything else to wear up there? Especially since the Governor probably has deemed clothing "non-essential."

Hey, here's an idea: If you don't want people to protest, why don't you give them something else to do, like, I don't know... WORK! I mean really, saying that people who choose to go out are going to get everyone who is huddled in their homes sick, is like saying a person without a vaccine can get a person with a (WORKING) vaccine sick. Apparently, most Americans have thrown logic out the door.

When People in Charge Believe They Are God or the Voice of God

Sometimes, we appoint people to positions of power, and they let that power go to their heads. These people are frequently charismatic and well-spoken. However, their appointment affects their logic and reasoning skills. This can be especially dangerous when a medical authority stops looking at scientific research and believes he has found the answer to a health solution--even if that solution is extreme and not supported by facts.

The model example of this is Benjamin Rush. Benjamin Rush was a Founding Father. He was also one of the first doctors teaching at the first American Medical University. He held many high positions, but when Yellow Fever struck, he believed that he had the best idea for dealing with the plague. Bleeding patients had actually fallen out of favor in Europe. It was an old-fashioned method of dealing with disease by the 1790s. Supportive care was becoming the norm, but when Rush tried it he claimed it killed 4 out of 5 of his patients. He switched to the old tried and true method of bleeding and purgatives to make people throw up. Since severe yellow fever causes stomach bleeding, he saw that they would vomit "black bile" and felt he was doing his job to get rid of the excess. He still lost patients, so he took his measures to the next extreme. He drew so much blood from his patients, his front yard became a bloody mess--literally. He even caused the other doctors of his day to squirm. He prescribed ten times the amount of purgatives that any other doctor would prescribe. A battle between the doctors raged in the newspapers. Throughout it all Rush maintained that he never lost a patient once he enacted these measures. He believed that despite bleeding falling out of favor in Europe, America was a different place and therefore required different treatment methods. He believed there was only one disease--fever-- and there was only one treatment for that disease--aggressive bleeding. He believed God had divinely given him this idea. And he taught this to all his students and published books on it for other doctors to read.

That Rush had 5 assistants and 3 of them died during the Yellow Fever outbreak, makes the modern historian question his record. If he lost 0 of the patients he treated, how did he lose 60% of his assistants? One researcher traced as many of his patients as he could and discovered 46% of them had died from Yellow Fever. His school of medicine probably contributed to George Washington's death.
Although the debate during and after the Yellow Fever epidemic was harsh, he only was pushed into resigning from his position regulating public health. He kept his teaching job, and was almost appointed to another one, but Alexander Hamilton, one of his most vocal opponents blocked it. Rush had radical ideas, but unfortunately they were not founded on science. His zeal caused him to ignore the deaths he caused or perhaps his stubbornness caused him to keep killing others. His followers loved him regardless.

The result was that bleeding remained prominent as a treatment for more than 50 years--but only in the United States. Leaders are important, but it is also important to recognize when someone should not be in a leadership position, especially in medicine, and those people who make bad choices, such as when doctors supported smoking, they should be removed from their positions and more humble people placed there instead. Medical leaders must look at research and never assume they have all the answers.

Please Tell Me in What Way Nathaniel Woods is an "Innocent Man?"

Dear Martin Luther King III,

Please tell me in what way Nathaniel Woods is an "innocent man?" Have you even read the transcript of the trial in which Mr. Woods was convicted?  Mr. Woods and his buddy, Mr. Spencer, were known drug dealers who dealt drugs. More than two people came forward at Mr. Woods' trial and stated that these two both dealt drugs together each day in a partnership from their house. These people testified that both had made statements that they were tired of the police bugging them. Mr. Woods had a warrant out for his arrest because he had already allegedly harmed another person.

When the police officers went to Mr. Woods' apartment that fateful day, they did not have any weapons drawn. They asked Mr. Woods to come out so they could serve the warrant--which he refused to do. Mr. Woods asked to see the warrant, and even after they showed it and his picture to him, he refused to come out of the house, and ran back into the living room, where Mr. Spencer was waiting with a rifle. At this time the one police officer did pull out a can of mace, but according to witness testimony, this mace was never used. In fact, Mr. Woods kept the police officers attention away from Mr. Spencer by begging the police officer not to spray him and telling him he surrendered.

Please explain in what way a person who deals drugs to others in the neighborhood, and who allegedly hurt others so badly there was a warrant for his arrest, and who instead of surrendering at the door when presented with the warrant ran into the house--into the only room in the house where his co-partner in dealing drugs could easily shoot the police officers trying to arrest him--, and then upon leaving the house stepped out of the way so Mr. Spencer could shoot yet another police officer when Mr. Woods opened the door and saw him standing in the doorway--please explain how this man is "innocent." Keep in mind that under federal law (which Mr. Woods was not tried under since he had been already convicted and sentenced to death under Alabama law), if you are a drug dealer and homicide is committed in the course of your dealing drugs that you can receive the death penalty.  The supreme court has upheld this law. Both Mr. Woods and Mr. Spencer had made previous statements multiple times (whether in "jest" or not) that they were tired of the police interfering with their trade and wanted to kill the police to show them they were tired of it. Is not the one way to determine whether a statement is made in jest or not by the actions that follow that statement?

About 70,000 people die each year from overdosing on drugs. Nearly 14,000 people died from cocaine overdoses in 2017 alone. The highest rate of cocaine deaths affected African Americans. Do you really think your father would be proud that you are calling Mr. Woods, who was a noted cocaine dealer prone to violence, including the domestic assault warrant that was being served to him at the time of the officers deaths, "innocent?" Multiple people testified to these facts at Mr. Woods' trial--the same trial you claim was "mishandled," if you had taken the time to read it before making a statement about it. You seem to think that just because a known drug dealer is not the trigger man in a homicide he should not be convicted and sentenced to death--but the laws of our land say different. How are you advancing the relationship between people of different skin tones and cultural backgrounds when you stand behind a drug dealer who instead of going with the cops when served a warrant ran into his home to a room where his co-drug dealing buddy had a gun aimed on them?

Why We Should All Be Worried About the Charlottesville Conviction.

We have all heard the news: the person who killed the people in Charlottesville by ramming his car into them was affiliated with neo-nazis and is being charged with hate crimes. He was also convicted of first-degree murder.

To commit a hate crime in the United States, the perpetrator must cause bodily injury because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Please look at the picture. The people in the picture are the same "race" as the perpetrator. See the red flags? Although some of the marchers were carrying pro-abortion and black lives matter signs, this is an organized demonstration of the IWW. If you click the link and go to their website, you will see that the IWW wants to "build militant unionism" [my emphasis]. Their goal is for one worldwide, united union to develop communism (or anarchy according to around the world.

The sole police officer that had been stationed at this corner, asked to leave before the incident because she felt she was in danger from this crowd of "peaceful" protesters. She was given permission to do so. Also, the barricade that had blocked this street off to traffic had been removed by an unknown person-allowing the three cars through.

Enter the perpetrator. Now, he has been painted as a white supremacist who was out looking to run people over. He is also a mentally ill individual with a history of violent attacks on his mother. I am not arguing whether or not he was a white supremacist, but since he had violently attacked his own mother in the past and since the crowd is not the usual racial mix that white supremacist attack on the basis of race, I am saying that his crime should not be classified as a hate crime. Given his mental illness, I highly doubt he premeditated it. I assume being trapped in a crowd of people made him feel threatened. His mental illness heightened this.

However, the IWW was actually looking for a way to combine their cause with the "Black Lives Matter" plight (p 8). They have had floundering participation since the 1930s. Painting this attack as a hate crime, being in Charlottesville at the same time a rally by several neo-Nazis was taking place, this was the ideal opportunity to show themselves as being the same as other movements.

Since "Black Lives Matter" was there, if this were a racially motivated, premeditated attack by a white supremacist, it seems he would have targeted the "Black Lives Matter" demonstration. He didn't. He didn't even attack any of the religious denominations that were protesting the rally. Instead, he attacked a militant communist group. Political groups are not protected under the hate crime umbrella. Perhaps because members of Congress have been known to attack each other on the floor, and few of them wanted to impose additional penalties on their colleagues.

Why should we be concerned? If anyone can be tried for a hate crime simply because they are affiliated with a white supremacist group, that means the definition of hate crime has become too broad. Here is a scenario as to where this could lead: two white men, one a radical communist and one a white supremacist, get into an argument in a bar. The radical communist starts to beat up the white supremacist. The white supremacist retaliates. The white supremacist ends up with a broken arm and gets fined $10,000 and imprisoned four years for aggravated assault (because the lawyers state it was premeditated based on the person's social media posts) with an additional ten years in prison because of his beliefs and because he had visited websites and posted things stating he felt radical communists should all be taken out back and beaten with a chair. The radical communist ends up with a broken nose a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

What does the typical American gun owner look like?

I support M-rated video game regulation and stronger Internet controls on violent and pornographic materials. Even parents who want to prevent their children access from these things find it difficult in our era to do so- with the technology we have today, that should not be the case.

I support re-opening mental health institutions in major cities; allowing parents to commit disturbed children (as long as they attend family therapy with the committed child); and allowing people to be committed for a 24-hour observation period even if they don't admit they want to kill themselves or someone else. Right now, adults who don't admit to one of those things are nearly impossible to have committed even if they are acting violently. I have seen this with my own eyes because of the struggles I have had with my own mentally ill child.

Still, whenever there is a school shooting, mental health issues are glazed over and violent media is completely ignored- except in the case of this recent declaration by the Kentucky governor. But his voice was quickly swept under the rug by the reporter on that story. The reporter claims there are more guns in America than ever (and is probably correct). However, the number of households owning guns is at an all time low. In fact, the thing that spikes gun sales the most is media hoopla about more gun control!

So, I decided to find out who is the average American gun owner? It isn't some poverty stricken, youthful teen with an anger problem looking to take it out on the nearest high school. The largest portion of gun owners in the United States is over 45, male, multi-racial or white, living in the country or suburbs, with at least some college education, makes over $60,000 a year, and is a veteran of the armed forces. Those are the people additional restrictions are going to impede from buying a gun legally. And that is what this comes down to: legally purchasing guns. Should the Florida shooter been allowed to buy a gun legally- no. But a background check doesn't look at what it needs to look at when it comes to violent crime. It looks for convictions instead of potential for conviction.

When we force mentally ill children to enter regular schools from a young age they get teased and made fun of and beat up- especially boys. They purchase violent video games to take out their anger and discover an excellent training program. They hone their skills and become a ticking time bomb. If we regulate guns, these children will grow up and find ways to get around those regulations whether it means having a spouse make the purchase for them, learning how to make their own gun from scratch, or switching their fascination to other deadly weapons like the bombs so frequently used in other countries. I actually find it ironic that the rest of the world overlooks their own violence issues and focuses on guns in the United States.

The facts are that media has become more graphically violent in the past fifty years. Even though household gun ownership in the United States has gone down, violence has been on the increase around the world. To me, that says the problem is much deeper than just guns.

The Story I Hope Finally Gets a Voice in the Midst of This Latest Sexual Harassment Fad

As a woman, I can count the number of times my rear end has been "brushed" or grabbed. Nor would I want to. Is it acceptable for anyone to violate another person like that- no. However, in our nation it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That means, I am not going to report a person to the authorities for grabbing my rear unless I have proof he or she did it intentionally. Court-worthy proof.
Now some lady is complaining that a guy sexually harassed her when he asked her to go to a hotel room with her. Really? I think that claim belittles the thousands (millions?) of women who are not given any choice and raped each year. I would love it if the United States enacted the death penalty for serial rapists. But just a guy asking you to go to his hotel should be a freedom of speech thing. Just ignore it or tell him to bug off or ask your superiors to discipline him. Or here's a better one- flat out tell him he is a creep, and he needs to knock it off because it isn't funny, and you aren't interested. Most guys are actually clueless when it comes to crossing the line verbally.

I have been what I classify as sexually harassed more than once in my life. Once was witnessed- but none of the witnesses did anything. The witnessed incident could have gone to court if I had pursued it, but would any of the witnesses have done anything. It was two other women who had probably been putting up with it much longer than I had (and probably much worse situations). I simply quit that job. Should have I hired a lawyer- I don't know. I was only 18. Would I hire a lawyer now and try to drag his name through the mud? Absolutely not. It is done. It is over. The witnesses have probably long forgotten the incident. What other reason could any woman have to come out for the first time after a statue of limitations is up and accuse a man of something like that? The only reason I can think of is to defame him and that is not real justice because if the incident did not happen the way you remember it there is nothing that will ever clear his name again.
But as more and more allegations of sexual assault appear, two things came to my mind. In many cases, only one or two women are coming forward. Please. If a guy is a womanizer, he does it to multiple women every day and there will be evidence. Why aren't more coming forward? Also, if a guy did this 20 or 30 years ago- has he changed? If he has, once again, should he be socially punished for issues he might have had when he was younger? In my opinion, if one of those issues was simply asking a woman to a hotel, I don't think the answer is yes. Rape- yes, always.

If you are raped, go to a hospital and get examined immediately. If you survive a rape, there is nothing that should prevent you from doing this. Begin the long trial process immediately. Get a rapist off the street. And politically we need to push for a death penalty for serial rapists. Most people who are raped end up committing suicide because of the rape-why shouldn't a rapist get the same penalty as a murderer? I guarantee men would think twice before forcing a woman to do something against her will if we started executing those who did.

My biggest complaint about these allegations and my biggest reason for disgust with everyone praising these women comes down to one person who really does deserve praise: Corey Feldman. Corey Feldman was sexually abused as a child actor by many men in Hollywood, and he has repeatedly tried to draw attention to this fact. But people have ignored him for years. Why isn't he touted as a brave man? Why isn't his story considered the first to bring out the problem with the Film Industry? Corey Feldman told police officers about these men years ago, but the police refused to investigate. Afterward, the men were both arrested for being pedophiles, and now are wanted men. How many children would have the police saved if they listened? My hope is that Corey will finally be able to draw attention to his cause.