NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION? YES iITS TRUE!!

After nearly two years of digging dirt, $35 million dollars of tax money spent, thousands of hours of secret testimony in several venues, and all conducted by a team of fifteen or more fervent  anti-Trump attorneys eager and over eager to succeed at taking down a President, Mr. Robert Mueller came up with nothing.  No charges.  No evidence to prosecute.  End of story.

Special prosecutor Mueller’s mandate was to find evidence of “collusion” between Russia and the Trump team during the 2016 election.  He found none.  Stating in his report: “that the prosecutors “could not find evidence to move forward with the crime of collusion” (i.e. no charges were warranted).  That was an easy discovery.  Mr. Mueller made that determination very early on in his almost two year study, yet he kept that key finding a secret.  Some suggest his motive  was to set a trap for the President—to goad the President and then provide the  opportunity to commit the crime of “obstruction of justice”.  That did not occur.  Mueller completed his investigation and wrote his report.   His efforts were unhindered and unobstructed by the President.  Some would conclude that since there was no crime—and the investigation went ahead unhindered, thus there was no obstruction. But Mr. Mueller had to feed the raging beasts in the Democrat camp and the media hollering for blood.


So Robert Mueller, having no collusison crime to tag onto the President—turned his efforts to his weaker obstruction case and spent more that half of his 400+-page-report documenting possible and potential acts of “obstruction” by the President.  Yet even here he could NOT make a determination that the crime of obstruction had been committed.   Mueller, now exposed as a fervent anti-Trump ally and buddy of Mr. Comey, and the special prosecutor who filled his team of investigators with notoriously biased attorneys like Mr. Peter Strzok and Ms Lisa Page to work for him could not make the determination that the President committed the crime of obstruction—otherwise he and his 15 fervent anti-Trump attorneys would have certainly stated as much.  They did not.

In his report and in especially his press conference wherein the nervous, shaky, and shifty-eyed Mueller emphasized that he could not obsolve the President of crime.  As if that red herring was a part of his mandate.  But that is NOT the job of a prosecutor.  His job was to find evidence of a crime—and report it—his job was prosecution not adjudication (judging of guilt or innocence) . See: Professsor Alan Dershowitz’s op ed which so clearly and cogently lays out this premise in his piece in “theHill.com” entitled: “Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role” May 29, 2019.

In the end it is clear—no collusion and no obstruction—nothing of significance came of Mr. Mueller’s tainted efforts.  Mueller failed! He failed to find the evidence he and his co-conspirators were seeking to take down a sitting President.  Mueller will go down in history as another anti-Trump “establishment” denizen of the corrupt DC swamp attempting to use his powerful position to sway political outcomes and elections that the nation would be best clensed of.

MUELLER SPEAKS! REVEALS 3 PHASES OF DEEP STATE COUP

ROBERT MUELLER REVEALS HIS PART IN THREE PHASES OF THE ATTEMPT TO BRING DOWN THE PRESIDENT AND DENY DEMOCRACY TO USA VOTERS

The French have a lovely word: “denouement” which literally means  “un knotting” or “un tying a knot”, but has appropriately evolved to signify the “end”, or the “climax when all is made clear”.

In Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s  nine minute press conference  yesterday (May 29 ,2019) Mueller finally untied the knot—and revealed to us all his underlying motives and the corruption at the heart of our democracy.  He has finally made clear to the American public  he is NOT and never was the “straight arrow”, unbiased investigator into the truth he worked so diligently and falsely to establish, but simply another one of the self-serving,  entrenched Washington-establishment elite—the Deep State”— who has been been haughtily and  diligently working since late 2015 to deny the American people their right to express their preferences democratically at the polls.

As Americans of every political persuasion —and whether we support (or supported) Mrs Clinton, Mr. Trump or Bernie Sanders, we should all be deeply concerned that our rights at the ballot box are being eroded and usurped by entrenched elites in high offices in Washington DC who think they know better and have more rights to the direction and leadership of our government than the 63 million voters that cast their ballots in the last election in a way that these un-elected, appointed officials did not like or saw as a threat to their power and prestige.  The Founding Fathers would be aghast at these developments.

What have we learned from these last two years?
The covers over our eyes have fallen away, the knot has been untied, to expose a vast scandal of  collusion and conspiracy—but not with the Russians. The real danger to our governemnt and democracy has slowly evolved over the decades—as a result of too much money, too much power, and too much secrecy, right here in Washington DC.  But in the last few months the whole scheme has been exposed to reveal three phases of political deparavity.

The First Phase.  Elements of the Democrat Party, the Clinton Machine, the media and the Obama Administration conspired to use the powerful and secretive intelligence agencies against US citizens as a means to spy on the inner workings of the Trump campaign. Their aim was to gather information which  would alter the outcome of the 2016 election in favor of the Democrat candidate.  Only in America, with its real power of the ballot box could these powerful Deep State forces be foiled by people voting their preferences. But indeed, as a result of people-power and the Constitution,  the schemes and machinations of these powerful individual and political forces were not successful.

The Second Phase.  When shockingly, the Democrat candidate lost and Mr. Trump was victorious the conspirators turned to a Phase Two.  Called the  “insurance policy” this was a concerted smear campaign by a small cabal of conspirators in the top echelons of the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department. These individuals conspired to leak unverified, purchased, political-opposition research as “intelligence” which was distributed to the media and to foreign governments to set the stage for an eventual  Special Prosecuter (Mr. Mueller) who was tasked to collect information to demonstrate that the election was “rigged” by the Russians working in tandem with the Trump team.

 Mr. Mueller must have discovered in short order that there was no “there there”. The Mueller team found no evidence to support the allegations of Russian colllusion with the Trump team, but continued to ‘slow-walk” the investigation to intentionally weaken and undermine a legitimately elected Administration, and again have its political impact by altering the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections in favor of the Democrats.   For two years the Mueller Russian collusion investigation was in the news.  It was characterized by surreptitious leaks, inuendo, and misinformation which continued for two years with the intent to undermine the political power of the President and to antagonize and perhaps incite the President into a response  which the Mueller team  could then characterize as “obstruction of justice”. The President, though justifiably angered and irritated did not oblige, and the investigation continued with no interference.   During this perio the President in fact improved his sanding in the  polls and managed to markedly improve the US economy in spite of the actions of the media and conspirators in the Deep State. Finally. Mr. Mueller was forced to publish his over 400 page document in which he had to reveal that he was working a “dry hole” from the start and found no collusion and “no charge of obstruction”.

The Third Phase.  Having failed to get “ their establishment candidate” elected, then failing  in the “insurance policy’ of setting the stage for early impeachment, all that was left for the conspirators in the establishment was to prevent this President from being elected to a second term.  That was Mr. Mueller’s final task, as he revealed in his report and his nine minute preser. His statements were  designed to leave a question mark in the voter’s mind.  Was Mr. Trump guilty of obstruction of justice? Mueller states he “can not obsolve” Trump of guilt”.  It is clear that Mueller  and his co-conspirators have instituted the third and final phase of their attempts at controlling who the American people can elect as their President.

The knot has been untied!

VENEZUELA: SEN. GRAHAM CALLS FOR INVASION—MORE DUMB STUFF FROM DC

No one ever claimed you had to be a genius to be a US Senator...far from it.  But the stupidity one hears sometimes coming from the mouths of some our supposedly “high ranking” and “senior” politicians  is shocking.  Take for instance the recent mumblings of Senator Lindsey Graham (R NC) who called for the invasion of Venezuela.  (See vox.com “Lindsey Graham proposes invading Venezuela to oust Maduro”—E. Kleefeld, May 26, 2019.)   

Graham supports an invasion because according to him it would check what he claims is “Cuban influence” in that dystopian, chaotic and mismanaged country.  In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, as well as a Fox News interview, Graham reprieved the President Reagan era invasion of Granada in1983 as a paradigm for an invasion of Venezuela, apparently unaware or ignoring the sad history of that episode and the last two decades of disastrous invasions and regime change embroglios in Iraq and Afghanistan   The Granada invasion was nothing to be proud of or to emulate.  Granada was bad policy in 1983 but is a good example of what could and often does go wrong with the thoughtless and casual misapplication of military might.        

In October of 1983 Ronald Reagan, citing “threats posed to American nationals” from a political uprising in Grenada, sent a naval task force and thousands of soldiers to invade the tiny Caribbean island nation   a green speck about the size of the combined  Brooklyn and Queens Counties in NY City which is located about 100 miles north of the north coast of Venezuela.  

 Since 1979, Granada, under then Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, had been irritating Washington as it moved steadily toward a more and more left-leaning political stance.  PM Bishop had even the temerity to develop close relations with Castro’s Cuba.  But in 1983 Bishop was assassinated and a more extreme leftist— avowed  Marxist, Bernard Cord—and later Hudson Austin-took over the government. These leaders moved Grenada further into the sphere of Communist Cuba.  Protests and demonstrations (some say instigated by the CIA) erupted in the streets of the capital city of St. George. 

President Reagan, using as an excuse the threat of harm coming to the nearly 1000 US citizens on the island, (most were medical students at one university) sent the invasion force.   The eventual force of about 7,000 US Marines, (supported by a task force of one aircraft carrier, two destroyers, 3 frigates, dozens of helicopters, and 27, F14 Tomcat fighter jets) found themselves facing armed Grenadian troops as well as Cuban engineers who were on the island to rebuild the airport.  These local forces, numbering about 1,200, opposed the Reagan armada with small arms, two armored cars and 12 Anti Aircraft guns.  See: Wikipedia.com: Grenada Invasion. 

Our US troops were successful, but due to poor planning and preparation (in the rush to invade the troops were had no maps of the island ) our overwhelming forces suffered 20 dead and over 100 wounded in a short few days. We also lost nine of our helicopters to ground fire.    After the first days of combat President Reagan had to to send in about 4000 more troops to finally subdue the locals and oust the Grenadian  People’s Revolutionary government.  There is little argument that the US effort was hugely  expensive for the benefits gained (what were they?)  and should have elicited severe condemnation,  but the Regan Administration characterized the costly (in blood, money and materiel) invasion as a “great victory” as well as a “roll back of communist” influence in the Caribbean.  They got away with it too. 

Other Americans at the time were more skeptical of government motives, noting that the Grenada invasion seemed too much like a transparent and insidious means of deflecting public attention from the really tragic and  disastrous events which had just occurred only a few days earlier  in Lebanon— the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing in which 241 US peacekeeper troops were brutally killed by a car bomb.    

That is the sad, embarrassing history of the Grenada Invasion.  Do we want to repeat that in multiples of perhaps thousands in Venezuela?  Apparently Senator Graham thinks that’s OK.  

Grenada is a tiny island of about 100 square miles with at the time, a population of about 91,000. Its small military comprised some 1,200 troops and a few armored cars and about a dozen antiaircraft guns. 

Venezuela is a huge nation state of more that’s 350,000 square miles, much of it jungle and forested highlands.  To envision its size think of an area equal to an area  about that of all the New England and the Mid Atlantic States of the USA combined.     Venezuela has a population of 30 million people or almost one-tenth of the USA,  The national forces are comprised of a conscripted force claimed to have 320,000 members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, National  Guard and National Militia. In 2008 an Armed Reserve was established which is claimed to total an additional 600,000 members.  These trained forces are (as of 2008) well equipped with modern armaments such as ballistic missiles, surface-to-air missiles, attack helicopters, battle tanks, field artillery, rocket launchers, air defense systems.  

The political situation in Venezuela is in one way similar to the USA...the government and the polity is strongly divided between poor residents of the countryside and favellas and the (formerly) wealthy denizens of the cities. Even today there are armed pro-government gangs called “collectivos” which attack any who demonstrate against the Maduro government.  Such forces would not simply give up after a US military defeat—after an invasion—but would coalesce into powerful insurgents that would slink off into the jungles and highlands to become  an insurgent force difficult and costly to suppress and irradICATE—if even possible.  

The forces of Venezuela are no match for the USA.  We would clearly win any war with Venezuela and any two or more of its allies.    But at what cost?  Why would we want to expend the effort, or spend the money or the blood? What benefits would there be to the USA?

And finally how would it end?  With another twenty year Afghan-style war of attrition which would drain other trillions of dollars of our wealth? Of American forces tied-down fighting jungle based insurgents?  Or with vast numbers of Venezuelan refugees streaming across our southern border?  

Oh please Senator Graham—bite your tongue!  

SUPPORT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE FROM DOWN UNDER

FOR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS

We can all agree that our world is experiencing a period of climate change.  What some disagree on is the question of the cause of this phenomenon.  Almost the entire science community is in full agreement that climate change or weather intensification (some use the easily misconstrued term “global warming”)  is the result of human generated changes to our atmosphere (and oceans).  This hypothesis posits the  over the latter half of the last century and into the present, humans have altered (and continue to alter) the atmosphere by dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide gas, the waste product of burning fossil fuels (oil gas, and coal) into the atmosphere.  This gas (and some others) acts as a “blanket” on the earth’s surface to hold heat that would normally radiate away into space.  (Greenhouse effect). The result is a warmer more energized atmosphere. Atmospheric energy or heat is dissipated by air movements (winds) and by storms (clouds, precipitation). The heat can warm the oceans and melt the icecaps contributing to coastal flooding.  Some places have and will continue to experience higher temperatures, droughts, while others may expect more rain and snow. Yes snow can be the result of global warming.  The higher energy content of the atmosphere can be expected to contribute to an intensification of all weather phenomena.  

But some observers persist in claiming that the changes that we are observing in the weather (and climate) are simply the result of natural fluctuations in atmospheric phenomena  which have occurred in the past. Many of these latter (climate change denier) folks are connected to or  swayed by arguments proffered by the powerful fossil energy interests.  These firms have a right to express their opinion—but we must keep in mind that they have a vested interest in selling their product

For many of us the arguments pro and con are confusing and seem too technical.  It should not be so.  The idea is simple: our industrial economies have been taking carbon out of the ground (fossil carbon) in the form of coal, oil and gas and burning it in the atmosphere (i.e. combining it with oxygen) and producing carbon dioxide.  The result of this chemical reaction and dumping the waste CO2 is that the concentration of carbon dioxide  in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily since at least the early part of the last century. 

It should be plain that there is a connection: higher carbon dioxide equals more “heat blanket effect” (or greenhouse effect) and that equates to  higher air temperatures and more intense weather phenomena—more and more intense and damaging tornadoes , more hurricanes, more rain, more snow more droughts, more and hotter heat waves, etc. etc..  

But I recently came across a pair of graphs —one from distant and isolated Australia—that seem to illustrate the connection between fossil fuel use and higher atmospheric temperatures with clarity. 

(Note graphs in Fig 1 and 2 in original document were not printed  in this blog edition. You may see them by following source informaiotn noted below)

Figure 1.  Australian Average temperature anomalies 1910-2009. After Wikipedia, Australian Climate . See Climate of Australia, Wikipedia, global warming  Www.en.m..Wikipedia.org/ global warming

Why pick Australia? Australia is a small continent located in the Southern Hemisphere surrounded by the polar region by the Southern Ocean, It is not subject to the flows of dry cold polar (arctic) air which sweeps down onto North America and Europe during the winter season. As a result winters are relatively mild in Australia and the weather and climate have less contrasts between the seasons.  Thus its changes in temperature over the period indicated show less fluctuations and may be more representative of the global patterns

To prepare the graph in Figure 1. Australian meteorologists calculated the average Australian temperatures for a characteristic period they defined as the years 1961 to 1990.  Then using that number as the “mean or typical temperature” they calculated the departure from that number for the temperature data which had been collected from 1910 to 2009. Each little blue dot represents the departure or anomaly from the “average” or representative  1961-1990 data.  Thus for the 1910 data the anomalies ranged from about -0.7 deg C to -0.2 deg C.  While in the 1980 data anomalies of approximately 0.1 C to 0.7C.  In addition the analysts added a form of moving average (the red line) or mean loess (lowess) which in a sense summarizes and smooths out the data points to make the trend in the data more easily viewed.

It is clear that however you look at the chart there is a distinctive and sharp break in the data points occurring at approximately the 1950s. In this period both the “high” temperature anomalies and the “low” temperature anomalies rise from left to right on the chart.    Clearly the air was warming according to these data. 

But what was happening globally during this 1950-1960s period?  Was there some change in the global consumption of our fossil fuels? 

(Note graphs in Fig 1 and 2 in original document were not printed  in this blog edition. You may see them by following source informaiotn noted below) 

The Figure 2 graph (below) illustrates the global consumption of fossil fuels  from 1800 to 2016. The vertical (y) scale is Terrawatt-hours—a measure of power (equal to 114 megawatts sustained for one year).  Note that by 1950 the consumption of coal, oil and gas increase sharply.  Coal (having been steady from about 1900 onward) increases, but it is oil consumption which increases most rapidly during this period, while natural gas use increases more gradually,

 In 1950 coal, oil,  and gas were being consumed to the tune of  about 20,000 TWh of power, annually but in the next two and a half decades fossil fuel consumption surges upward by a factor of four over the next 25 years to about 80,000 TWh of power annually or roughly and increase of 400% over a period of only two and a half decades. That increase in the 

Figure 2.  Global fossil Fuel Consumption. Source Vacaville Smil (2017) downloaded (May 25, 2019) from “Fossil Fuels” Ritchie and Roser (no date)

consumption of fossil fuels continued into the present century and is still  rising.  By the turn of the century in 2000 consumption had reached  to well over 120,000TWh of power or more than 600% increase over the 1950 consumption level.  

Correlation is not causation.  But the correspondence of time periods of these events, the sharp inflection points on the graphs and other data very strongly indicate a clear connection between fossil fuel consumption and increases in atmospheric temperatures in Australia that is impossible to ignore.    

Faced with these data most of us would be forced to conclude that it is very likely that the climate change we observe is directly related to the huge amounts of fossil carbon our industries and populations use to fuel their businesses and life styles.  The consequences of ignoring the problem may be catastrophic. 

References

1. “Fossil Fuels” by Hanna Ritchie and Max Roser, See: ourwordlindata.org. Downloaded May 25, 2019

2. “Climate of Australia”  Wikipedia 

Tha

WHY HILLARY HATES MEN

We can all empathize with someone who has had a major  disappointment in their lives. We have all experienced these unhappy events, perhaps the failure to get that first seat in the high school band orchestra, or be cast in the part in the play that you thought should have gone to you, or to have failed to speak French or get that degree you wanted so bad but never got.  We all feel bad for a while, then turn to new challenges and forget it.  The process can lead to growth and be curative.   But not Hillary—she worked hard, suffered, sacrificed, humiliated herself all her life for one goal: to be the ”First Woman President”. and after several attempts it escaped her grasp.  She has not recovered or become more resilient.  Perhaps it is her dysfunctional relationships with men.   

Hillary to this author’s observations has had recurring negative experiences with many of the  men in her life.  Perhaps it explains her lack of graciousness and her persistence in continually attempting to blame her loss on everything but herself, and her insistence on placing the blame on male voters, politicians and even her spouse  .

Most recently these episodes of figuratively  “getting screwed”  by males was a recent incident involving former President Obama.  In an update version of the former president’s  2017 book: “Obama: The Call of History”  written by Peter Baker due out in a few days (May 10, 2019),  author Baker claims that Obama and his team squarely put the blame for the disastrous loss of the 2016 election on Hillary herself.  In the new addition the author claims that the Obama team concluded that in 2016 Hillary could not “ translate his (Obama’s) strong record and healthy economy into a winning message”  Obama was also quoted as saying that Hillary “brought many of her troubles on herself.....No one forced her to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sacs (for speaking fees while  Sec of State),” No one forced her to run a “”soulless, scripted campaign “.  These comments must have hurt. But were only the culmination of a whole series of what Hillary must have interpreted as male abuse. 

Bill Clinton was Hillary’s first male abuser.  At Georgetown University Bill wooed her as an attractive, smart, university colleague, and at some point (perhaps when Hill was not thinking so clearly) Bill got her to agree to marriage. Hillary tied her wagon to an (outwardly) attractive political dynamo who exuded “very ikely to succeed” messages.  She hitched her wagon to Bill Clinton, and tagged along as First Lady for Bill while Governor of Arkansas, then as chief protector and camp supporter of candidate for President Bill and finally as First Lady to Bill Clinton, President of the USA.  During all this time Bill carried on blithely with humiliating and embarrassing “bimbo eruptions”, multiple extramarital flings, casual affairs, gropings,, and even rapes (!) with a long list of  women of every stripe—in the style and at the numeric level of Tiger Woods’ athletic sexual activities.  Hillary stuck by her man through it all.  But perhaps as time went passed not so much for love, but as a result of the Faustian bargain Hillary had sealed with Bill.  It was this: that Hillary, a highly intelligent, intensely ambitions and well-educated woman— would become —at the end— the First Female President of the USA.  Bill would remind her often, as he ducked flying high-heeled shoes and White House crockery aimed at his head, “Remember babe, you are the First Lady who will become the First Woman President!  So you gotta stick with me, don’t mess my face with these missiles, and keep that upper lip stiff!”.  This was Bill’s reminder and promise after every sexual faux pas. Hillary self-servingly accepted the circumstances and the terms and kept the hope of the promised reward.

In the 2008 Presidential campaign Bill and Hillary Clinton fielded  a massive well-oiled “Hillary for President “ organization, headed by the Democrat elite of DC as well as the close support of Bill, a popular and charismatic former President who took into the campaign  with him a formidable political network.  The nomination campaign touted Hillary as a former  First Lady, New York Senator and the “next first female President of the USA”. The powerful, charismatic and popular former President, Bill Clinton was at her side.  

But then, out of volcanic mists swirling down the slopes of Hawaii’s Mount Kilauea, through the windy barrios of Chicago and into the swampy halls of Congress appeared the dark-skinned visage of a tall Afro-American male candidate with an un-presidential sounding  name: Barack Hussein Obama.  A one-term-junior US Senator and former “community organizer” with no money, no powerful connections, and no history of political success miraculously and swiftly swiped the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination from Hillary’s two-fisted grasp. 

Upon taking his prize, Hillary extracted a promise from the upstart African-American.  In return for her critical support in the general election (from hysterically disappointed women voters) Obama would have to promise to set the stage for Hillary’s return as the next Democrat presidential nominee in 2016. 

“Don’t fret Senator Clinton, I will serve two terms as the “First Black President” and during those years I will act as your conduit to becoming the “First Woman President”.  It’s a deal.  In fact I’’ll nominate up  you  Secretary of State so you will be touted as the most “well-prepared candidate for the Oval Office” that ever was nominated.  “Think of it, he added waxing eloquent and more excited,  “you are a well-trained attorney, you served as  First Lady for eight years, then as US Senator, AND in my administration you will serve as Secretary of State for another eight years.   With all those years of experience  you will be a shoo in—and I promise to give you every possible support, even over all others”, he added.

The tall slim black candidate put both hands on Mrs Clinton’s shoulders. She looked up and could see a tiny glint of a tear in his dark eyes.   Her instinctive distrust of males was almost overwhelmed by this man’s seeming genuine performance and promise.  But she had too many bad experiences—significant doubt remained.  

As per plan, Hillary went on to serve in the State Department as Secretary of State where she worked diligently, not for the Nation, but for her sure-to-come presidential campaign of 2016.  Part of her plan was to make certain that plenty of funds were funneled into  the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).  The CGI was a transparent and blatant ‘pay for play” scheme designed,  first to fill the bank accounts of the Clintons as recompense for their many years of paltry pay on the government dole. During her tenure as Secretary of State (SS) Hillary raked in “pay for play” money from all comers—Russians, Chinese, Saudi sheiks, Ukrainian politicians , etc. etc. to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Near the end of her tenure at State the CGI;s coffers were overflowing with foreign money.  But besides being the perfect sexual playground for Bill Clinton CGI also served as a convenient  holding ground for her team of elite and well-paid future campaign gofers, advisors and stalwarts.  But she was well aware that she could  not mix  her illegal “family CGI business activity” with those of her duties as the nation’s chief foreign policy officer.  She was well aware of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which permits disclosure of any documents that are controlled by the US government.   As a consequence of her dual (secret ) functions  she made this decision—she would rather be accused of breaking protocols which required her to use only government emails and servers than giving up on the cash hauls she was making for the CGI.  She needed a private email account and a private server which would be devoted to her “pay for play” activities and which  would permit her to hide her “personal” activities for the CGI from prying government eyes and from the FOIA.  The CGI served not only as a source of political power, and ready cash, but also as a means of keeping a trained and well paid political staff on the payroll ready for the 2016 race, these facts would have to be kept secret.  

All went according to plan as Obama finally left office...he dutifully acted as a (secret) supporter of Hillary.  As the time came close he even discouraged his VP (Joe Biden) the traditional person to pick up the mantle of the next presidential candidate. Joe got a cold shoulder, and was eventually cut off at the knees.  After-all Obama did have a “pact” with Hillary.  

But there was another near “screw job” by males in the offing for poor Hillary.  That occurred when an old, white-haired, Brooklyn-born male Senator, one  Bernie Sanders, a Socialist back-bencher who had been lurking around the radical fringes of Congress for decades entered the Democrat campaign against Hillary.  Bernie with no money, no endorsements and no connections had the nerve— to put himself up against front-runner Hillary Bernie the socialist beat Clinton in popularity. He  almost  pulled the 2016 nomination ring right out of the haughty coronated candidate Clinton’s  desperate grasp.  Except for the underhanded slimy actions of the powerful Clinton machine Bernie might have done her in like Obama had in 2008.  But Bernie did not have the fire in the belly to do it.  Perhaps he was only playing the candidate game for his own gratification.  When he blurted out “ I don’t care about your ——emails” we all knew it was over for Bernie.      

Hillary with the help of her female supports she prevailed over Sanders and  was already  planning on how she was going to redecorate the Oval Office with softer more floral patterns, and finally rid the room of the macho statuary, and that vicious-looking Bald Eagle in the center of the Oval Office rug,  when disaster struck in the form of another male.

This new threat came in the form of a seemingly buffoonish, billionaire business man and TV personality who sported a dyed-blonde  flop over  hair style.  Under the hair he had absolutely no experience as a professional politician.  Donald Trump had paid off plenty of politicians for favors —even Hillary—but had never been one.  He had never been elected to anything—not even a high school class office.  He was used to starting at the very top when he announced his candidacy  for President of the USA as he descended the escalator in his own Trump Tower in NY City. 

The pollsters all consistently showed Trump as the clear underdog—the best poll-numbers he ever made was his 40% to Hillary’s 70%.   The Irish odds-makers gave the election to Clinton.  All the pollsters, save one—a tracking poll from California—were certain Clinton was going to walk into the Oval Office in a tidal wave win.  

Obama and his CIA and FBI heads conspired to make sure that Clinton won by using dirt dished out by pro-western Ukrainian and Russian sources and presenting the dirt as if it was actual foreign service “intelligence”. They used this opposition research to mislead a FISA court so as to spy on the political opposition—the Trump campaign.  The conspirators all expected Hillary to win and for them to get a pat on the back and perhaps a plum position in the new administration,  

Then another male abuser came along—in the tall awkward form of FBI Director James Comey.  It was Director Comeys turn to abuse poor Hilary.   Just a short time before the election and after a long but phony investigation  Comey announced that he could not bring charges against her for her allegedly criminal use of her private email server (a means to be able to secretly funnel “pay for play money” into her husband’s Clinton Global Initiative slush fund).  But he added a damaging remark claiming that Clinton was “extremely careless”.  Then a short time later even closer to Election Day  Comey took an even more egregious step, he reopened the same old “email investigation” when he caromed that new evidence came to light.  Perhaps Comey was just hedging his bets—what if Clinton lost? He needed to curry favor with both candidates.  So Clinton got the screw job again. 

 The media harbored an intense hostility to candidate Trump and wrote the “news’ and opinion pieces as if they were one in the same. They made no effort to conceal their deep bias.  The entire establishment opposed Trump, the media, the old guard Republicans opposed him, Democrats laughed at him, Hollywood parodied him, TV hosts made jokes,  Past Republican presidents shunned him. 

Trump was all on his own.  His only supporters were the people.  Trump’s massive rallies  held in “fly over country” and the “rust belt” states where locals poured in—filling the huge venues to overcapacity while often leaving milling crowds outside. 

Trump was his blustery-self in the Presidential debates. While the super-prepared and overly-scripted Clinton who haughtily dismissed Trump supporters ( a good part of the electorate) as “irredeemable” God fearing, gun toting, red necks won the debates on points cheered by the elite and the press, but she could not score a knockout blow.  The night before the election all but a few of GOP hopeful supporters in the rust belt and countryside thought that Trump  was slated for a major loss.  

But again a man denied her her long sought and fondest wish.  In the morning mists we learned that the nation rejected Mrs Clinton-the  “best prepared” female presidential candidate that was ever nominated.  

Clinton her hatred of all men reinforced and assured descended into deep depression—to continue her unpatriotic “resistance” movement. 

       

.  

GRAY WHALES DIE OF MALNUTRITION IN PACIFIC

ARE WHALES STARVING THE RESULT OF THE NEAR ONE MILLION TONS OF  INSECTICIDE (IMIDACLOPRID) WE HAVE SPRAYED SINCE 1980 ?

I read with concern (Gray Whales Starving to Death in Pacific, Leila Miller, Seattle Times-on line—May 3, 2019 ) that scientists studying the Gray whale along the Pacific coast have reported higher standings and mortality  numbers (31 to date)  of this species  usual for this time of the year.  But more concerning is the fact that necropsies on the whales have concluded that many of them died from malnutrition.  The dead whales were skinny.  Other live whales observed at sea were also reported as “skinny”.  What could be the cause?  Malnutrition in a species that lives in a vast throughly mixed marine environment could be a sign of underlying ecological changes.  the Gray whale is an important indicator species which can elucidate the health of the ocean in general. 

Grays or California Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustas) are baleen or filter-feeder whales which feed mostly on small Crustacea, commonly critters such as amphipods , isopods, mysids as well as shrimp.  They inhabit the coastal waters of the eastern Pacific from Mexico to the waters of the Arctic. While another (endangered)  group inhabit the western coasts of the Pacific from the bays around the Kamchatka peninsula south into the Sea of Japan.  In thee zones, close to the shore,  they dive to depths of as little as 10-60 feet (and as deep as 200 feet). On the ocean bed they slide onto their side, open their mouths and using their tongues to create a suction “vacuum”  up the surface mud and any bottom dwelling shrimp and amphipods in the mud.  They then use their tongues again to force the slurry of mud and water past the baleen filters in their oral cavities  for trap the small crustaceans which they favor for food.  They also feed opportunistically in the upper levels of the water column for other pelagic crustaceans such as shrimp, krill, squid and small fish.  But they are specialized to feed on the bottom.  Scientists have even observed that individuals may be either “right” or left” sided  They can telll which side these individuals prefer to fish on by the fact that the normally widely dispersed barnacle and encrusting sea life on their skins does not appear on the side of their heads which they prefer to scrape on the bottom.  

This possibility of a wide ranging species of marine mammal which is known to exploit near shore, relatively shallow marine environments in harboring what is considered to be a healthy, diverse, ubiquitous and abundant food source. If these whales are suffering from a scarcity of prey—that  is potentially very very worrying situation

Although there may be many causes for the observed malnutrition and related deaths in Gray whales —disease, pollution, sonic disturbances, etc. etc. decrease in the quantity or quality oof the prey species its exploits would be the first parameter to evaluate.  Is it possible that shallow water shrimp, amphipods, mysids isopods and other crustaceans are suffering from the leaching of persistent chemical insecticides humans have been blithely applying to their forests, fields, pastures, lawns and gardens since the 1980s in increasing amounts.  These persistent, deadly, chemical substances are carried by rainwater, which drains the farm fields, pastures and gardens passes into streams and then rivers and ultimately run into the sea.  The is strong circumstantial evidence that the runoff of these substances from farms and gardens on Long Island and Connecticut were the cause of the demise of the lobster and blue claw fishery that once existed in Long Island Sound and the bays of Connecticut and Long Island. 

Neonicitinoids (infamous now as a deadly threat to terrestrial Arthropoda (jointed legged critters like insects, bees as well as crabs, shrimp and lobsters) and the probable cause of the decline of the honey bee population).  Neonicitinoids are a class of neurotoxic pesticides which are designed to effectively target terrestrial insects— but which can kill marine Crustacea as well.   Introduced late in the last century they have become the most widely and commonly applied insecticide on earth.  Bayer Group  —the giant German pharmaceutical company and developer of the most common form of this group trade name (among others) : imidacloprid sold 20,000 tonnes (@22,00 US tons) of the active agent of the chemical in 2010,. That amount or close to it has been sold for decades and the amounts sold have been increasing over the decades.  If 22,000 US tons of Imidacloprid was about the average amount sold each year since 1980 and spread on the world’s farms, pastures, lawns and gardens we can estimate that there may be nearly 860,000 tons (22,000X 39 = 858,000) almost a million tons of potentially active chemical which has been applied and dispersed by rain and river water into the world ocean,  These substances would likely be found in higher concentrations in near shore environments- where grays feed and could conceivably affect the life cycles of Crustacea in these areas and affect the foraging success of predators such as the Gray Whale.   One possible cause of “skinny” Gray whales could be that the species food source—crustaceans— like the near extinct Long Island lobsters and our honey bees— have been poisoned off by a very insidious stealthy chemical—-claimed to be “safe as baby food”.  

It is well documented that this substance—Imidacloprid— is soluble in water, when applied on land ( In the USA it has been applied to to over 90% of the USA corn crop) only 5% of the substance is absorbed by the plant and the remainder is washed into the soil and streams where it eventually entering rivers which drain-toward the coast.  It is possible that lethal remnant concentrations of the nearly one million tons of this chemical which has been sold and presumably used since the 1980 introduction remain in the soil and in the marine environment.  Only small amounts of the chemical are required to have their lethal neurotoxic effect  on the near shore marine Arthropoda —the Crustacea—the food fro gray whales—the same effects  as it has on the terrestrial Arthropoda—the Insecta—like bees.  

What a terrible cost that would be......to kill off a few bugs—- we may be unknowingly making the whole Pacific Ocean a life desert—and eventually the rest of the planet uninhabitable.