Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante
As I listen to and read about all of this HOOHAH coming out of the Ten Miles Square on the Potomac, formerly known as Washington, D.C., but more recently as Moronica on the Potomac, a strange place seething with all kinds of idiocy on a daily basis anymore, I have to wonder who all these posturing politicians down there who are rolling their eyes and tsk-tsking and stamping their feet in indignation over Donald Trump asking Jim Comey to be loyal to him instead of Obama and allegedly obstructing justice think they are kidding with all of their carefully scripted histrionics, and especially the Democrats who put Sonia Sotomayor into a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court based on a decision in a case before her as a federal circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 where obstruction of justice was front and center as an issue in that matter.
Yes, people, you are indeed reading that correctly, and I am standing behind those words – in 2005, as a federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Sonia Sotomayor put the federal government seal of approval on the practice of obstruction of justice by elected public officials in New York state, the most corrupt state in this union, thanks in large part to Sonia Sotomayor, and for that political act, she gained the notice of and the support of the powerful politicians in New York state whose favor she needed to curry to get her noticed by them as someone who could be trusted to be politically reliable (i.e. loyal) so they would in turn elevate her onto the Supreme Court bench.
So, people, before we develop that real-life story any further, let’s ponder this following question for a moment, as the answer is quite relevant to making sense of what is going on here in the USA today, where obstruction of justice is now a real hot topic:
WHAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the answer is “the noncompliance with the legal system by interfering with (1) the law administration or procedures, (2) not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and (3) inflicting damage on an officer, juror or witness.
So, as we can clearly see here, understanding what obstruction of justice is does not require one to be possessed of a law degree from Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Georgetown.
To the contrary, the concept is really quite simple to grasp.
So, how then does that definition of obstruction of justice apply to the case that was before Sotomayor in 2005?
Ah, yes, a good question, so let us go and see, and we do that by referring to the specific complaint that was before Sotomayor in that matter, wherein was stated as follows:
4. The unlawful and discriminatory practices alleged below were committed within the Northern District of the State of New York, those being a practice in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York known as “targeting” or the use of fear, intimidation, coercion and false arrest as tools of public policy in the Town of Poestenkill and the County of Rensselaer to “lock out” plaintiff from equal access to government and protection of law in the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill as punishment for and because of plaintiff’s acts of investigating alleged acts of public corruption in the Town of Poestenkill and County of Rensselaer in the State of New York and giving evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation during a Hobbs Act investigation of public corruption in Rensselaer County, for no other purpose than to deter him from continuing said investigation and/or giving further evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning alleged public corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill; and the unlawful vehicle of the “psychiatric takedown”, where plaintiff was to be permanently removed or eliminated as a witness against the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill under color of law by the public officials allegedly involved in the said continued acts of alleged public corruption, or others alleged to be acting in concert with or on behalf of the said public officials, by having a fraudulent New York State Mental Hygiene Law 9.45 involuntary commitment order issued by defendant Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York, acting as a “custom witness removal service” for Rensselaer County and Town of Poestenkill officials, the said fraudulent involuntary commitment order directing the New York State Police to capture and transport plaintiff to the secure mental health facility of the Samaritan Hospital of Troy, New York for ‘mind-wiping’ and other and further unspecificed acts of alleged mental torture for no other purpose than to prevent, intimidate and deter plaintiff from conducting any further citizen investigations into alleged acts of public corruption in the Town of Poestenkill and County of Rensselaer in the State of New York, the said fraudulent and unlawful involuntary commitment order causing plaintiff’s unlawful detention as an alleged ‘violent Viet Nam’ war veteran in the Albany, New York VA Hospital on August 22, 2001 in violation of plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to the United States Constitution.
end quote
Now, and this is important to an understanding of Sotomayor’s actions in this matter vis-Ã -vis her approval of obstruction of justice in New York state as a matter of policy, that sworn statement above here was never denied or contested in any way, nor was it ever controverted by any of the defendants, who included Rensselaer County Executive Kathleen Jimino, the public official charged with obstruction of justice, or their lawyers, including then-New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer who was subsequently forced to resign as NYS governor after he was found to be protecting a high-priced prostitution ring whose services he was also availing himself of on a regular basis, albeit at retail prices, or so the wags all said.
So, where then does obstruction of justice enter in there?
And the answer would be on all three counts, including interfering with the law administration or procedures, not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and especially no. 3, inflicting damage on an officer or witness.
And that brings us to an article in a recent edition of THE HILL by Rebecca Savransky on 11 June 2017 entitled “Former U.S. attorney: ‘Absolutely evidence’ to begin obstruction of justice case,” where former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, who was fired earlier this year by Donald Trump for as-yet undisclosed reasons, was quoted as follows:
“That’s an incredibly serious thing if people think that the president of the United States can tell heads of law enforcement agencies, based on his own whim or his own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular criminal cases against individuals,” he said.
“That’s not how America works.”
end quotes
But there he is wrong, people, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, because in New York state, and Preet is well aware of this, elected officials can indeed tell heads of law enforcement agencies, based on his or her own whim or his or her own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular criminal cases against individuals, as was the case in that matter before Sonia Sotomayor in 2005.
To fully comprehend that case before Sotomayor in 2005, which featured among other things, falsified statements by the Office of AG “Longshanks” Spitzer which Sotomayor accepted without even blinking, we actually need to drop further back in time to May 25, 1989, and a press statement by then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono, wherein he stated as follows concerning the plaintiff in that matter before Sotomayor in 2005:
“I cannot in good conscience condone the conduct of an employee who consistently stated that he worked for the State of New York, rather than Rensselaer County …..”
end quote
Political disloyalty, people, we simply cannot have it, or the whole political system, which is based on trading favors for money, would break down and then where would all the politicians be?
As to the obstruction of justice, in a March 27, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which was before Sotomayor as evidence in 2005 concerning a federal Hobbs Act investigation of corruption in the Rensselaer County (State of New York) Department of Health, we have:
“According to (name deleted), the results of the State’s investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little ‘enforcement activity’ even in the face of illegal sales.”
“(Name deleted) advised that the Rensselaer County Health Department’s oversight of realty subdivisions in that county is ‘unsatisfactory’!”
“(Name deleted) also faulted the State of New York Health Department for not auditing Rensselaer County’s program.”
“(Name deleted) advised that he would not expect to find a worse county in the region (the Capital District region which comprises 17 counties)!”
“According to (name deleted), the object of any county health department is to protect the public and not to facilitate development.”
“In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public.”
end quotes
New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department.
Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department.
And there was very little enforcement activity even in the face of illegal sales, and you know what, people?
Those were not random events.
To the contrary, that was a common practice both in Rensselaer County and the state of New York – ignoring the law for people who had become “protected persons” by purchasing that protection as a form of insurance offered by the Democrat party and the Republican party as two competing “insurance agencies.”
So there is count no. 1, interfering with the administration of law.
And that, people, was the vaunted Federal Bureau of Investigation speaking, before the whole matter was hushed up by the U.S. Attorney for the northern District of New York, as follows:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OPINION:
Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA COTTRELL, Northern District of New York, advised on May 1, 1989, that no evidence of any violation of federal law had been uncovered as result of investigation to date.
For this reason, AUSA COTTRELL declined prosecution at this time.
end quote
Putting on the HUSH, it is called in New York state, and the Office of the U.S. Attorney, another political appointee who needs the favor of a politician to hold that position, knows how to play that game with the best of them.
“HUH, WHAT, WHAT EVIDENCE, I DIDN’T SEE ANY EVIDENCE, SO THERE ISN’T A CASE, END OF THE MATTER, SO EVERYBODY GO BACK HOME, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
And when everything is buried deep enough, as was the case here, with Sonia Sotomayor adding the final shovelfuls in 2005, that is exactly the case.
But can it ever be buried deep enough to keep it from rising back to the surface at a later date and stinking to high heaven when it does?
Is there ever a perfect cover-up?
Or do the wheels always end up coming off like they are doing here, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, as we await the next installment of this true-to-life tale of obstruction of justice being a common practice by politicians here in the United States of America today?
Carla Jasper says
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act”. George Orwill
Thank you Wayne. Keep it coming.
andy zahn says
The left is so hell bent on destroying Trump that they don’t care if the entire Republic is destroyed. In fact, I don’t think they ever cared about this country, the Flag, the Anthem or the Pledge.
Socialism is wonderful EXCEPT every Utopia failed & look to Cuba, Venzula & the USSR among others.
It’s great. Everyone gets the same wages no matter IQ, education, skill, work ethic & willingness to take risk. Borrowing is wonderful. Everything is FREE & America can borrow it’s way to prosperity.
Deborah bender says
Obstruction of justice is the biggest pack of bullsh*t! That’s what they throw at you when they have nothing else to throw.
Paul Plante says
Where there is no justice to begin with, Deborah bender, which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as “protecting rights and punishing wrongs using fairness,” a very squishy definition indeed as you so aptly make clear above here, and West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, copyright 2008 defines as “the proper administration of the law,” which we have not had in quite some long time here to the north of you, this according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, itself, or “the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law,” which we to the north of you do not have, thanks to then-Federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a justice of the United States Supreme Court, then, as you so aptly make clear above here, there can be nothing to obstruct, and thus, the very concept of “obstructing justice” is indeed the biggest pack of bullsh*t there is, which is the theme, actually, of my disquisition on the subject above.
And by way of review, so that we can see the truth of Deborah bender’s premise above here that thanks to then-Federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a justice of the United States Supreme Court, the very concept of “obstructing justice” is indeed the biggest pack of bullsh*t there is, Black’s Law Dictionary defines Obstruction of Justice as “the noncompliance with the legal system by interfering with (1) the law administration or procedures, (2) not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and (3) inflicting damage on an officer, juror or witness.
Where a federal appeals court justice who is now a United States supreme court justice has ruled based on evidence that public officials in corrupt New York state can with impunity and the concurrence and approval of the federal government through its 2d Circuit Court of Appeals interfere with (1) the law administration or procedures, (2) not fully disclose information or falsify statements, and (3) inflict damage on an officer or witness, as was the clearly case in that matter before Sotomayor in 2005. then as a matter of public policy in the United States of America today, at least in the federal 2d circuit, which includes all of New York state, there is no longer prohibited conduct by public officials formerly known as obstruction of justice, plain and simple.
Which presents us with this following conundrum (a confusing and difficult problem or question), although as conundrums go, this really isn’t much of one:
Where a federal 2d circuit court of appeals judge now a United States supreme court justice has put the federal government seal of approval on public officials in New York state interfering with (1) the law administration or procedures, and (2) not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and (3) inflicting damage on an officer or witness, why would a president of the United States of America be prohibited from engaging in the same sort of conduct?
Any ideas, anyone?
Can anyone prove false Deborah bender’s premise above here that thanks to then-Federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a justice of the United States Supreme Court, the very concept of “obstructing justice” in this country is indeed the biggest pack of bullsh*t there is?
Or does she win the argument by default?
The candid world would like to know!
Paul Plante says
As we discuss then-federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, God help the Republic, putting the federal government seal of approval on obstruction of justice by public officials in New York state in matters involving protection of the public’s health, it is interesting to note, this in the light of the comments of Deborah bender above, which sound very much like the utterances of a criminal defense attorney who makes a living defending corrupt public officials, that “Obstruction of justice is the biggest pack of bullsh*t!” and “That’s what they throw at you when they have nothing else to throw,” that 0n June 14, 2017, out in Flint, Michigan, where children were drinking lead-tainted water, that Dr. Eden Wells, Michigan’s chief medical officer, was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to an investigator, while Nick Lyon, the head of the Michigan health department, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in Flint’s lead-tainted water crisis in the death of an 85-year-old man with Legionnaires’ disease.
Lyon is accused of failing to alert the public about a Legionnaires’ outbreak in the Flint area in 2014-15.
Whether or not those charges of obstruction of justice levied against Dr. Eden Wells, Michigan’s chief medical officer, will turn out to be the biggest pack of bullsh*t thrown at her because they had nothing else to throw at her, remains to be seen, of course, with Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder expressing support for her, telling the media that Nick Lyon and Dr. Eden Wells are presumed innocent and “will remain on duty” at the Department of Health and Human Services, so there we will just have to be patient and await that outcome, those of us who are interested in such things, anyway.
But with respect to obstruction of justice being interfering with (1) the law administration or procedures, and (2) not fully disclosing information or falsifying statements, and (3) inflicting damage on an officer or witness, in this case under discussion in here, 05-2133-CV, then-federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, now a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, herself did not fully disclose information while she herself falsified statements with an intent to interfere with the administration of the New York State Public Health Law in corrupt Rensselaer County in corrupt New York state while at the same time inflicting damage on an officer or witness, which translates as denial of honest services, which denial of honest services resulted in children in Hoosick Falls, New York drinking water contaminated with the carcinogen PFOA just this past year.
But as a federal judge, of course, Sotomayor was free to falsify the record with impunity and immunity from the law, because federal judges make their own rules, and one of the rules made in the federal 2d Circuit specifically with respect to this case under discussion in here is that federal judges can bury evidence when it suits them and tells lies and falsify statements when it suits them, so that Sotomayor herself is immune from having to face a charge of obstruction of justice
This we know from a ruling of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT In re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT Docket No. 15-90031-jm, by
Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge, wherein was stated as follows:
An allegation that a judge, in reaching a decision, neglected to consider fully all arguments presented, failed to comprehend the meaning or import of certain statutes or cases, or disregarded certain key facts or witnesses is merely challenging the correctness of the judge’s decision.
Similarly, an allegation that the result of the decision evidences a bias in favor of the prevailing party is also merely an attack on the correctness of that decision.
Signed: New York, New York
April 30, 2015
end quotes
So, federal judges are unassailable, prople, at least in corrupt New York state, and can obstruct justice in New York state with impunity.
So, people, back to the conundrum then:
If a federal judge can obstruct justice with impunity, why can’t the president as chief executive officer do the same?
Why are there two different sets of standards at play here?
Why is the president held to a higher standard than a federal appeals court judge when it comes to being allowed by virtue of the office to obstruct justice at will?
If Sonia Sotomayor could with impunity and immunity obstruct justice in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt state of New York with the result being children drinking carcinogen-contaminated water, and be appointed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice as a result, or reward, then why is Donald Trump prohibited from obstructing justice in the matter involving Jim Comey and the Russians robbing Hillary Clinton of the office of president in this last presidential election?
Any thoughts on that, anyone?
Stuart Bell says
I do:
The “Shoe Bomber” was a Muslim.
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims.
The Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim.
The USS Cole bombers were Muslims.
The Pulse Nightclub shooters were Muslims.
The “Underwear Bomber” was a Muslim.
The Madrid train bombers were Muslims.
The Times Square bomber was a Muslim.
The Bali nightclub bombers were Muslims.
The London subway bombers were Muslims.
The Moscow theater attackers were Muslims.
The Boston Marathon bombers were Muslims.
The Iranian Embassy takeover was by Muslims.
The Pan-Am Flight#103 bombers were Muslims.
The Air France Entebbe hijackers were Muslims.
The Beirut US Embassy bombers were Muslims.
The Libyan US Embassy attack was by a Muslim.
The Buenos Aires suicide bombers were Muslims.
The Kenyan US Embassy bombers were Muslims.
The Israeli Olympic Team attackers were Muslims.
The Saudi Khobar Towers bombers were Muslims.
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims.
The Beslan Russian school attackers were Muslims.
The Achille Lauro cruise ship attackers were Muslims.
The 1993 World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims.
The Bombay and Mumbai India attackers were Muslims.
The September 11th, 2001, airplane hijackers were Muslims.
Flashback 2007 from Nicholas Kristof in his New York Times article titled, ‘Obama: Man of the World’:
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. … Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
Think of it:
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shinto living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
The Arabs are not happy!
They’re not happy in Gaza.
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya.
They’re not happy in Morocco.
They’re not happy in Iran.
They’re not happy in Iraq.
They’re not happy in Yemen.
They’re not happy in Afghanistan.
They’re not happy in Pakistan.
They’re not happy in Syria.
They’re not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy?
They’re happy in England.
They’re happy in France.
They’re happy in Italy.
They’re happy in Germany.
They’re happy in Norway.
They’re happy in every country that is not Muslim.
And who do they blame?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy! Sounds like the ‘Cone-Heres’ on The Shore, does it not?
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
CAIR: AN ISLAMIC TERROR-LINKED ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
And We just can’t figure out who’s causing the problem?
Paul Plante says
“Terrorist organization,” Stuart Bell, is such an overworked term these days that it has come to mean virtually nothing at all, and there have been terrorist organizations since there have been people on the face of the earth, from my researches, anyway.
For example, right here in our own country, who can forget that in the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures by using insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting.
The White League was an American white supremacist paramilitary terrorist organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing.
Affiliated with the Democratic Party, the White League was one of the paramilitary groups described as “the military arm of the Democratic Party,” and through violence and intimidation, its members suppressed Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats’ taking control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876.
The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century after the end of the Reconstruction era of the United States, and they first appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen.
The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations arising in the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s.
These groups acted as “the military arm of the Democratic Party” and they had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by the freedmen, and during the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic voters.
So there is some good solid American domestic terrorism for you, that has nothing at all to do with the Muslims, who may simply be copycats when it comes to terrorist acts.
And anyone with a even smattering of history knows that terrorism was rampant in Europe before WWI and anyone with a memory of world events cannot forget the King David Hotel bombing, which was a terrorist attack carried out on Monday July 22, 1946 by the militant Zionist underground organization Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
In that act of terrorism, 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.
The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.
According to history, that terrorist attack initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine) and it was conceived as a response to Operation Agatha (a series of widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, conducted by the British authorities) and was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).
Disguised as Arabs, the Irgun planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, whose southern wing housed the Mandate Secretariat and a few offices of the British military headquarters.
The explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel.
Some of the inflicted deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.
As we with working memories recall, that bombing inflamed public opinion in Britain, and editorials in British newspapers argued that the bombing deflated statements by the government that it had been winning against the Jewish paramilitaries, with the Manchester Guardian arguing that “British firmness” inside Palestine had brought about more terrorism and worsened the situation in the country, the opposite effect that the government had intended.
So how about that, Stuart Bell?
Did the Muslims learn how to be terrorists from the Irgun crowd?
As to Communist terrorism, that term describes terrorism carried out in the advancement of, or by groups who adhere to, communism or related ideologies, such as Leninism, Maoism, or Marxism-Leninism.
With respect to just how long terrorism has been around as a political concept, in the 1930s, the term “communist terrorism” was used by the Nazi Party in Germany as part of a propaganda campaign to spread fear of communism with the Nazis blaming communist terrorism for the Reichstag fire, which they used as an excuse to push through legislation removing personal freedom from German citizens.
Then in the 1940s and 1950s, various Southeast Asian countries, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, witnessed the rise of communist groups engaging in terrorism, which was to get us involved in the quagmire of the Viet Nam war.
Staying with history here, in the 1960s, the Sino–Soviet split (between two communist states) led to a marked increase in terrorist activity in the region and of relevance and importance to this discussion, that decade also saw various terrorist groups commencing operations in Europe, Japan, and the Americas, with Yonah Alexander, an author and lecturer who specializes in terrorism who received his PhD from Columbia University, an MA from the University of Chicago (MA), and his BA from Roosevelt University of Chicago, deeming these groups Fighting Communist Organizations (FCOs), and telling us they rose out of the student union movement protesting against the Vietnam War.
The founders of these FCOs argued that violence was necessary to achieve their goals, and that peaceful protest was both ineffective and insufficient to attain them.
With respect to Communist terrorism, which is what got us mired down in VEET NAM, Lenin of Communist Russia supported terror as a tool, and considered mass terror to be a strategic and efficient method for advancing revolutionary goals.
According to Trotsky, Lenin emphasized the absolute necessity of terror and as early as 1904, Lenin said, “The dictatorship of the proletariat is an absolutely meaningless expression without Jacobin coercion.”
Author Joan Witte contends that Stalin opposed the use of terrorism as a mindless act but endorsed its use in order to advance the communist revolution, while Chaliand and Blin contend that Lenin advocated mass terror but objected to disorderly, unorganized, or petty acts of terrorism.
According to author Richard Drake, Lenin had abandoned any reluctance to use terrorist tactics by 1917, believing that all resistance to communist revolution should be met with maximum force.
Getting to Viet Nam, during World War II the communist Viet Minh fought a guerilla campaign led by Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese occupation forces and, following Japan’s surrender, against the French colonial forces with that insurgency continuing until 1954 as the Vietminh evolved into the Vietcong (VC), which fought against both the South Vietnamese government and American forces.
According to history, these campaigns involved terrorism resulting in the deaths of thousands, and although an armistice was signed between the Viet Minh and the French forces in 1954, terrorist actions continued.
Author Carol Winkler has written that in the 1950s, Viet Cong terrorism was rife in South Vietnam, with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, and members of the military being targeted, and between 1965 and 1972, Vietcong terrorists had killed over 33,000 people and abducted a further 57,000.
Terrorist actions in Saigon were described by Nghia M. Vo as “long and murderous.”
In these campaigns, South Vietnamese prime minister Trần Vãn Hýõng was the target of an assassination attempt; in 1964 alone, the Vietcong carried out 19,000 attacks on civilian targets.
In May 1967, Dr. Tran Van-Luy reported to the World Health Organization “that over the previous 10 years Communist terrorists had destroyed 174 dispensaries, maternity homes and hospitals,” and author Ami Pedahzur has written that “the overall volume and lethality of Vietcong terrorism rivals or exceeds all but a handful (e.g. Algeria, Sri Lanka) of terrorist campaigns waged over the last third of the twentieth century,” and that the VC used suicide terrorism as a form of propaganda of the deed.
So the Muslims hardly have a lock on terrorism, Stuart Bell.
As to the Muslims, they follow a code, which is what the Koran is, a code for warriors.
We are a people with no history, so we know absolutely nothing at all of the history of anyone else, including the Muslims.
If we knew something of the Muslims, we would know about the Battle of the Trench, also known as the Battle of the Confederates, which was a 27-day-long siege of Yathrib (now Medina) by Arab and Jewish tribes.
The largely outnumbered defenders of Medina, mainly Muslims led by Islamic prophet Muhammad, dug a trench on the suggestion of Salman Farsi, which together with Medina’s natural fortifications, rendered the confederate cavalry (consisting of horses and camels) useless, locking the two sides in a stalemate.
The well-organised defenders, the sinking of confederate morale, and poor weather conditions caused the siege to end in a fiasco.
The siege was a “battle of wits”, in which the Muslims tactically overcame their opponents while suffering very few casualties.
Efforts to defeat the Muslims failed, and Islam became influential in the region.
As a consequence, the Muslim army besieged the area of the Banu Qurayza tribe, leading to their surrender and enslavement or execution.
That was between January – February 627, Stuart Bell.
And surely, a military-minded person such as yourself cannot have forgotten the Battle of Yarmouk, which was a major battle between the army of the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Arab forces of the Rashidun Caliphate.
That battle, as I am sure you recall (I am sure Marine General “Mad Dogg” Mattis knows of it) consisted of a series of engagements that lasted for six days in August 636, near the Yarmouk River, along what today are the borders of Syria–Jordan and Syria–Israel, east of the Sea of Galilee.
The result of the battle was a complete Muslim victory which ended Byzantine rule in Syria.
The Battle of Yarmouk is regarded as one of the most decisive battles in military history, and it marked the first great wave of early Muslim conquests after the death of Muhammad, heralding the rapid advance of Islam into the then Christian Levant.
In order to check the Arab advance and to recover lost territory, Emperor Heraclius had sent a massive expedition to the Levant in May 636.
As the Byzantine army approached, the Arabs tactically withdrew from Syria and regrouped all their forces at the Yarmouk plains close to the Arabian Peninsula, where, after being reinforced, they defeated the numerically superior Byzantine army.
The battle is considered to be one of Khalid ibn al-Walid’s greatest military victories.
It cemented his reputation as one of the greatest tacticians and cavalry commanders in history.
Do you think, Stuart Bell, that the Muslims are ignorant of that history?
As to the Muslims, Stuart Bell, there are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, while the population of the U.S. was 321.4 million in 2015, so they have us far outnumbered it seems, which makes it a good thing for us, weak and obese that we are as a people, that they are not all terrorists.
And in fact, Stuart Bell, the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center on 9-11 were from our good friend and ally Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabi Islam is practiced, where women can be stoned to death for adultery and homosexuals (gays) are beheaded.
ISIS practices the same brand of Islam, in fact.
And I notice you stayed clear away from the relations between Christians.
If you went there, you of course would be confronted, as are we all, with the Paulicians, who were a Christian sect also accused by medieval sources of being Adoptionist, Gnostic, and quasi-Manichaean Christian.
They flourished between 650 and 872 in Armenia and the eastern themata of the Byzantine Empire.
According to medieval Byzantine sources, the group’s name was derived from the 3rd century Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata.
The founder of the sect is said to have been an Armenian by the name of Constantine, who hailed from Mananalis, a community near Samosata.
He studied the Gospels and Epistles, combined dualistic and Christian doctrines and, upon the basis of the former, vigorously opposed the formalism of the church.
According to Christian historian and scholar Samuel Vila, “in the year 660 [Constantine] received a deacon in his house, who put in his hands a precious and rare treasure in those days before the invention of the printing press: a New Testament.”
“Upon reading the same, he came to know about salvation in Christ; upon sharing said good news with others, he formed a group of sincere believers (later on, of preachers) that became known as Paulicians.”
Regarding himself as called to restore the pure Christianity of Paul (of Tarsus), he adopted the name Silvanus (one of Paul’s disciples), and about 660, he founded his first congregation at Kibossa, Armenia.
Twenty-seven years later, he was arrested by the Imperial authorities, tried for heresy and stoned to death.
Simeon, the court official who executed the order, was himself converted and adopting the name Titus became Constantine’s successor.
He was burned to death (the punishment pronounced upon the Manichaeans) in 690.
Beware being the wrong kind of Christian in a Christian world is the moral of that story.
And anyway, Stuart Bell, this thread isn’t about religion, although there may be an element of terrorism in it; it is about Sonia Sotomayor, now a Justice on the United States Supreme Court, if you can believe that, as a federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge in 2005, putting the federal government seal of approval on the practice of obstruction of justice by elected public officials in New York state, the most corrupt state in this union, thanks in large part to Sonia Sotomayor, and for that political act, gaining the notice of and the support of the powerful politicians in New York state whose favor she needed to curry to get her noticed by them as someone who could be trusted to be politically reliable (i.e. loyal) so they would in turn elevate her onto the Supreme Court bench.
While I would be more than happy to engage with you in another thread on Muslims and terrorism and warfare through the ages, where the Muslims have been victorious, versus where the Muslims were defeated, in here, we are confronting this domestic conundrum which has nothing at all to do with Muslims, to wit:
If a federal judge can obstruct justice with impunity, why can’t the president as chief executive officer do the same?
Why are there two different sets of standards at play here?
Why is the president held to a higher standard than a federal appeals court judge when it comes to being allowed by virtue of the office to obstruct justice at will?
If Sonia Sotomayor could with impunity and immunity obstruct justice in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt state of New York with the result being children drinking carcinogen-contaminated water, and be appointed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice as a result, or reward, then why is Donald Trump prohibited from obstructing justice in the matter involving Jim Comey and the Russians robbing Hillary Clinton of the office of president in this last presidential election?
Give us your thoughts on these pertinent questions, Stuart Bell, and we can get to the Muslims later!
Dana Lascu says
This nonsense has been floating around for many years, Stuart Bell, mercilessly aimed at two billion of the world’s population, the followers of Islam. The Adhan, the call to prayer, is hauntingly beautiful and it is a pity that you have never heard it, nor attempted to understand its words – you would likely agree with most of its text. You would agree that God is great, no? (To quote a very wise man, “Any god that is mine, but not yours, any god concerned with me, but not with you, is an idol.”)
A pity also that you haven’t been to any of the countries where Muslims are, supposedly, not happy, nor – very likely – in countries where they are, supposedly, happy. In either of those two worlds, you have not had Muslims love you like family, care for you and for your children, and spoil you with their affection and devoted friendship. You have missed out on so much in your life, you don’t have the right to hate. (You wouldn’t despise Oklahomans because of Timothy McVeigh. Right?)
Stuart Bell says
I am Free, White and Over 21. As my people have been accused of White Privilege, I intend to take full advantage of it. So I have every right to love or hate as I see fit. You do not know me and from your post, I do not wish to know you.
Paul Plante says
My goodness, Stuart Bell, of course you have every right to love or hate as you see fit.
And you don’t have to be white for that right to accrue to you.
If you were as black as the ace of spades, or an Arab, or an Afghan, or a Pakistani, you would still be able to love or hate as you saw fit, and nobody would be able to stop you, because the right to love or hate as you see fit is a God-given human right, not a “white right,” only, so have at it, dude, is my thought.
If hating Muslims winds your clock for you, then by all means, hate away, although, as an older person, I wonder what all that hate is going to do for you, personally, or to you, BUT, I am not your keeper, so that is not my concern if your hate ends up consuming you.
As you say, you are over 21.
As to that diatribe on the Muslims above which was gifted to you with a request to pass it along, was the person who gifted it to you sane and rational, do you think?
Or were they crazy as a ****-house rat, as we say up here in the countryside?
And what I am curious about, Stuart Bell, is how many of those “terrorist groups” in the diatribe came into existence after Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the U.S. State Department and the CIA made a stupid attempt to use terrorists as mercenaries in Syria to remove Basher Assad from power?
Asked another way, how many of those so-called “terrorist groups” came into existence because of U.S. funding?
How many of those so-called “terrorist groups” did we create, Stuart Bell?
Afterall, before Obama and Clinton and the CIA started recruiting terrorists in Syria, we heard nothing about a terrorist problem in Syria, and we didn’t even know about most of those names in your diatribe.
It is common knowledge, Stuart Bell, that the CIA was using Syria as an illicit base of operations to torture ghost detainees, as part of a program known as extraordinary rendition, which program was established in the mid-1990s and expanded in the 2000s.
It is common knowledge that one target of this program, Syrian-born Canadian Maher Arar, was detained in New York and sent to Syria, where he was interrogated and tortured.
Arar was held for more than a year; after his release, he sued the U.S. government.
According to a U.S. Judge (and confirmed by Canadian investigators):
During his first twelve days in Syrian detention, Arar was interrogated for eighteen hours per day and was physically and psychologically tortured.
He was beaten on his palms, hips, and lower back with a two-inch-thick electric cable.
His captors also used their fists to beat him on his stomach, his face, and the back of his neck.
He was subjected to excruciating pain and pleaded with his captors to stop, but they would not.
He was placed in a room where he could hear the screams of other detainees being tortured and was told that he, too, would be placed in a spine-breaking “chair,” hung upside down in a “tire” for beatings, and subjected to electric shocks.
To lessen his exposure to the torture, Arar falsely confessed, among other things, to having trained with terrorists in Afghanistan, even though he had never been to Afghanistan and had never been involved in terrorist activity.
Arar alleges that his interrogation in Syria was coordinated and planned by U.S. officials, who sent the Syrians a dossier containing specific questions.
As evidence of this, Arar notes that the interrogations in the United States and Syria contained identical questions, including a specific question about his relationship with a particular individual wanted for terrorism.
In return, the Syrian officials supplied U.S. officials with all information extracted from Arar; plaintiff cites a statement by one Syrian official who has publicly stated that the Syrian government shared information with the United States that it extracted from Arar.
The U.S. initially invoked the “state secrets privilege”.
When legal proceedings began anyway, the Ashcroft Justice Department was ridiculed for arguing that Arar was in fact a member of Al Qaeda.
Journalist Stephen Grey has identified eight other people tortured on behalf of the CIA at the same prison (“Palestine Branch”) in Syria.
The CIA imprisoned a German businessman, Mohammad Haydr Zammar, and transferred him from Morocco to the Syrian prison.
They subsequently offered German intelligence officials the opportunity to submit questions for Zammar, and asked Germany to overlook Syria’s human rights abuses because of cooperation in the War on Terror.
According to a 2013 report by the Open Society Foundation, Syria was one of the “most common destinations for rendered suspects” under the program.
Former CIA agent Robert Baer described the policy to the New Statesman: “If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria.”
“If you want someone to disappear – never to see them again – you send them to Egypt”.
end quote
Where were any of the so-called “terrorist groups” in your diatribe when all of that was going on, Stuart Bell?
And the answer is that we hadn’t created them yet, and but for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the CIA, the State Department and our U.S. tax dollars, many of those s0-called “terrorist groups” mentioned in your diatribe wouldn’t exist today, at all.
Perhaps you could pass that information on to the person who originally gave you the diatribe to share with all of us and the candid world in here.
Perhaps he could share his thoughts on the CIA using U.S. tax dollars in Syria to create these so-called “terrorist groups” he has included in the diatribe.
I for one would find them interesting to read.
Perhaps you could find out from him as well why it was that the CIA fell back out of bed with Syria, when they had that torture gig going so well between them.
That would be interesting to hear about, as well.
In the meantime, while we are all waiting for this diatribe writer to get back to us, Stuart Bell, if a federal judge in this country can obstruct justice with impunity, why can’t the president as chief executive officer do the same?
Why are there two different sets of standards at play here?
Why is the president held to a higher standard than a federal appeals court judge when it comes to being allowed by virtue of the office to obstruct justice at will?
If Sonia Sotomayor could with impunity and immunity obstruct justice in corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt state of New York with the result being children drinking carcinogen-contaminated water, and be appointed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice as a result, or reward, then why is Donald Trump prohibited from obstructing justice in the matter involving Jim Comey and the Russians robbing Hillary Clinton of the office of president in this last presidential election?
Stuart Bell says
To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing.
-George Smith Patton, Jr.
Paul Plante says
Have we kept on developing, Stuart Bell?
And if so, what exactly is it that we have developed into?
Are you not aware that it is Arabs that we have fighting our many battles for us right now today in the Middle East?
Isn’t that because we as a nation have become so weak, like the Romans and Byzantines in their latter days, that we have to have “barbarians” do our fighting for us?
And what on earth is with this obsession you have with Arabs?
If they want to live back in the 8th century in their own countries, don’t they have that right to do so?
Or do they have to be like Americans, because we are so very perfect in each and every way it is possible to be perfect?
But if we are so perfect, then why is this thread running on the subject of obstruction of justice in this country?
Sonia Sotomayor and Barack Obama and the Democrats in the U.S. senate who put her on the U.S. Supreme Court have got to be loving us talking about Arabs and Muslims in here, instead of the rampant public corruption in this country, where we live.
What a great distraction the Arabs and Muslims are for them!
And when it comes to men treating women in a pig-like degrading manner, Stuart Bell, you needn’t hie yourself all the way over to the Middle Eastern Arab countries to find them.
All you need do is go to Washington, D.C., now known as Moronica on the Potomac, or out to Silicon Valley in California, and you will find them in droves.
So the Arabs don’t have any kind of monopoly on treating women in a degrading manner.
And Arabs don’t have a lock on abject ignorance, either.
In a toe-to-toe contest as to who has the most ignorant people in their population, there is a very good chance we would win that contest hand’s down.
So why are we talking about the Arabs and Muslims in here?
Why aren’t we talking about public corruption in this country, where we live?
Is it because we have become so accepting of it, and welcoming of it, that we no longer look askance at it, but to the contrary, cheer on those who give us that corruption?
Given that Sonia Sotomayor became a United States Supreme Court justice after she put the federal government seal of approval on endemic public corruption in New York State, an action of hers that resulted in children in Hoosick Falls, New York drinking water laced with the carcinogen PFOA, I think the answer to that question has to be in the affirmative.
We have become a degraded and corrupt people in this country, Stuart Bell, to the point that the Americans who fought the war of independence against the British would not even acknowledge us as Americans, which is why we have to have Arabs doing our fighting for us in the Middle East.
I wonder what George Armstrong Patton would think about that if he hadn’t of been killed off at the end of WWII to keep him from starting a war with the Russians.
Do you have any thoughts on that, Stuart Bell?
Paul Plante says
The Empire soon fell into a period of difficulties, Stuart Bell, caused to a large extent by the undermining of the theme system and the neglect of the military.
Nikephoros II, John Tzimiskes, and Basil II changed the military divisions from a rapid response, primarily defensive, citizen army into a professional, campaigning army, increasingly manned by mercenaries.
Except for the names, and a few other small changes, Stuart Bell, doesn’t that sound like us today in this country, where we have to have Arab mercenaries fighting for us in the Middle East, primarily Syria and Iraqinam, where we have been mired down for what now seems like forever, and Afghanistanian mercenaries fighting for us in Afghanistnam, where we have been mired down even longer?
And for you people just now looking in on this conversation, the Empire in question that Stuart Bell and I are discussing here that soon fell into a period of difficulties caused to a large extent by the undermining of the theme system and the neglect of the military was the Byzantine Empire in its decline.
And Byzantine is such an appropriate theme for this thread, where Byzantine is defined as “Of a devious, usually stealthy manner, of practice,” which is what we have in here with respect to now-United States Supreme Court justice herself obstructing justice to the detriment of children in Hoosick Falls, New York who ended up drinking carcinogen-tainted water as a result.
Again, by way of review, with respect to obstruction of justice, as if such a concept even has any valid meaning anymore at the federal level of our government, to get us back on topic after this sidewards ramble with Stuart Bell on the subject of Muslims and Arabs, as if either were our responsibility as American citizens, 60 years ago now, perhaps before Stuart Bell was even born, on 1-1-1957, Jerome N. Frank, an American legal philosopher and a federal appellate judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stated as an authority on the so-called “legal system” in this country, especially at the federal level, where Judge Frank practiced, in an essay entitled “SOME REFLECTIONS ON JUDGE LEARNED HAND,” informed us as follows:
He (Federal District Court Judge Billings Learned Hand) added, “About trials hang a suspicion of trickery and a sense of result depending upon cajolery or worse.”
These comments open up an immense subject of which I’ll say no more than this: according to the present accepted working rules of the game, each lawyer owes a duty to his client to employ all sorts of wiles and stratagems which frequently prevent the trial judge or jury from getting as close as possible to the actual facts of a case.
end quotes
If you are reading that as saying that in 1957, in the federal courts, especially, obstruction of justice was rampant and the rule, not the exception, then yes, you are reading that correctly.
And from there we jump forward in time 58 years to April 30, 2015 to a ruling of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT In re CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT Docket No. 15-90031-jm, by Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge, wherein was stated as follows with respect to the continuation of that practice of obstruction of justice as an acceptable practice for lawyers in the federal 2d circuit court of appeals to practice, to wit:
An allegation that a judge, in reaching a decision, neglected to consider fully all arguments presented, failed to comprehend the meaning or import of certain statutes or cases, or disregarded certain key facts or witnesses is merely challenging the correctness of the judge’s decision.
Similarly, an allegation that the result of the decision evidences a bias in favor of the prevailing party is also merely an attack on the correctness of that decision.
Signed: New York, New York
end quotes
Now, even an idiot or someone insane would say that an allegation that a judge, in reaching a decision, failed to comprehend the meaning or import of certain statutes or cases, is an allegation of total incompetence on the part of the judge, which, in a normal world, where rules actually made sense, would make that person unfit to even be a federal judge, so of course it is a challenge to the correctness of the judge’s decision, based on the premise that an incompetent judge is incapable of dispensing justice, but Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015, was totally unfazed by that.
As far as he is concerned, and yes, let’s face it, the lawyer community, as well, who are a part of that farce, an incompetent person has as much right to be a federal judge as anyone else, if they have the right political connections, and if their incompetence on the bench results in harm coming to children in Hoosick Falls drinking carcinogen-tainted water, so what?
Big deal!
Go find somebody who gives a damn, now, get out of here!
Same to with an allegation that a judge, in reaching, a decision disregarded certain key facts or witnesses.
Again, even the insane would argue that a judge who disregards certain key facts, as Sonia Sotomayor herself did in this 2005 matter under discussion in here which began with a case of overt obstruction of justice in Rensselaer County in the state of New York by then Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono in 1988, or witnesses, such as Sotomayor did in this 2005 matter when she purposefully buried an Albany, New York police officer’s sworn eye-witness testimony which served to expose outright lies being put forth to Sotomayor by defense counsels in that matter, to include then-Democrat New York State Attorney General Eliot “Longshanks” Spitzer, and instead accepted the falsified version of the facts, knowingly and willingly so, is not an honest judge, and by doing so, is not dispensing justice, but to the contrary, is obstructing justice, so of course, that is challenging the correctness of the judge’s decision, for what else would it be?
And the answer of Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge of the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015, was obstruction of justice is accepted in that court and is standard fare.
“That is what federal judges do, sonny boy, so suck it up and get your *** of here” is the message there, and if some children in Hoosick Falls, New York end up drinking water laced with a carcinogen and are harmed as a result, let them get some money together to hire a lawyer for them to file a lawsuit, because that is how the legal system works.
It doesn’t exist to stop harm to children in Hoosick Falls, or anywhere else, for that matter.
It exists to exploit that harm so money can be made off of human misery by the legal profession.
Which takes us back to Judge Frank’s comments above about the present accepted working rules of the game, each lawyer owes a duty to his client to employ all sorts of wiles and stratagems which frequently prevent the trial judge or jury from getting as close as possible to the actual facts of a case.
So sorry about that, children in Hoosick Falls!
An effort was made in federal court to protect you from the harm that befell you, but due to federal rules of practice which not only allow, but encourage and reward obstruction of justice by lawyers and federal judges alike, that effort failed.
Such is life in America, today, people, where Obstruction Of Justice is a Federally-Approved Practice in the United States Of America today, and real people, children in Hoosick Falls, New York in this case, get harmed by it, and there is absolutely nothing an honest person can do to stop it.
That, people, is the legacy now-United States Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor has bequeathed to the children of the future in this nation – you don’t count in the eyes of the law.
Such is justice, and what a hollow mockery it is!
Thank you, Judge Sotomayor and Judge Katzmann for your service to the children of the nation!
tkenny says
That’s an impressive list you copied there Mr Bell. Try this fact
“As of 2010, Christianity was by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31 percent) of all 6.9 billion people on Earth,” the Pew report says. “Islam was second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23 percent of the global population.”
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/02/397042004/muslim-population-will-surpass-christians-this-century-pew-says
So how are your math skills? Why don’t you take your little list there and tell me what % of those Muslims haven’t commit a terroristic act?
Stuart Bell says
That diatribe was gifted to me with a request to pass it along. If you would like to discuss my math skills please reply, leave a phone number and we shall have a nice conversation. As you do not even post using a real name, you will not leave a phone number.
Paul Plante says
Scanning your list, Stuart Bell, I notice you also omitted Christians living with Buddhists, and with good reason, because if you went there, you would bring us right back to the spring of 1963, when South Vietnamese forces suppressed Buddhist religious leaders and followers, which led to a political crisis for the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem.
The suppression of Buddhists in South Vietnam became known in this country as the “Buddhist crisis,” and it led to the downfall of President Ngo Dinh Diem.
The arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm, the president of South Vietnam, marked the culmination of a successful CIA-backed coup d’état led by General Dương Văn Minh in November 1963.
On 2 November 1963, Diệm and his adviser, his younger brother Ngô Đình Nhu, were arrested after the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) had been successful in a bloody overnight siege on Gia Long Palace in Saigon.
The coup was the culmination of nine years of autocratic and nepotistic family rule in South Vietnam.
Discontent with the Diệm regime had been simmering below the surface, and exploded with mass Buddhist protests against long-standing religious discrimination after the government shooting of protesters who defied a ban on the flying of the Buddhist flag.
Ngô Đình Diệm was a leader of the Catholic element in South Viet Nam and was opposed by Buddhists, so he violently suppressed them, and the CIA had him deposed and murdered as a result.
But that is all schoolboy history now, Stuart Bell, and it has no real relevance to this thread on obstruction of justice in this country right now as we are speaking in here, as was stated in the opening paragraph of this thread, where I stated that as I listen to and read about all of this HOOHAH coming out of the Ten Miles Square on the Potomac, formerly known as Washington, D.C., but more recently as Moronica on the Potomac, a strange place seething with all kinds of idiocy on a daily basis anymore, I have to wonder who all these posturing politicians down there who are rolling their eyes and tsk-tsking and stamping their feet in indignation over Donald Trump asking Jim Comey to be loyal to him instead of Obama and allegedly obstructing justice think they are kidding with all of their carefully scripted histrionics, and especially the Democrats who put Sonia Sotomayor into a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court based on a decision in a case before her as a federal circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 where obstruction of justice was front and center as an issue in that matter.
Above here, you pose this query: “And We just can’t figure out who’s causing the problem?”
And the answer with relevance to this thread is not the Muslims.
It was not the Muslims who caused those children in Hoosick Falls, New York to be drinking water laced with the carcinogen PFOA.
The Muslims did not put that carcinogen in that water, American corporations did, and they were able to do so because of what is called “regulatory insufficiency.”
“Regulatory insufficiency” is what you get when regulatory agencies, in this case the corrupt Rensselaer County Department of Health, the New York State Department of Health and the mis-named New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, turn their backs on their responsibility to protect the public’s health, for political purposes, of course, since those agencies are all controlled by politicians who use them for their own partisan purposes.
In this specific case under discussion in here that put Sonia Sotomayor into a seat on the United States Supreme Court, God help the nation, after she put the federal government seal of approval in 2005 on a policy of obstruction of justice in New York state, which is to say, she endorsed public corruption in New York state as a federal appeals court judge, we know that the case before her in 2005 stemmed from obstruction of justice and open solicitation of bribes by then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono, and we know that from a newspaper article entitled “Buono refuses to cite developers over code” by Laurie Anderson, staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, on 19 January 1988, wherein was stated:
Rensselaer County Executive John Buono said the county will attempt to resolve differences with the developers of the Spruce Run subdivision, who allegedly have violated state Health Department codes.
Despite a state Health Department recommendation, Buono said Monday he did not intend to cite Steve Anderson of East Greenbush and his partners in developing the third phase of the 40-acre subdivision for alleged health code violations.
In a report released Friday, a state Health Department official recommended the county cite the partners for illegally entering sales contracts for 10 lots in Phase 3 that were not approved by the county Health Department because of improper drainage.
“We’re going to try and see if we can work with Mr. Anderson,” Buono said.
“He’ll be invited to come into talk and see if we can come to an agreement.”
end quotes
Nine months later, Buono appeared on the Christine Kapostacy-Jansing Show on TV Channel 13 in Menands, New York and he openly talked about an $80,000 bribe offered to him to “get rid of” the Rensselaer County Associate Health Engineer whose job it was to protect the public’s health in Rensselaer County, including those children in Hoosick Falls who ended up with PFOA in their drinking water as a result of Buono’s action in October of 1988 of forcibly removing the Rensselaer County Associate Public Health Engineer from his office.
And as these things go, that began the chain of events that resulted in the case finally being before Sotomayor at the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005, so slowly does the system of justice work in this country, or at least up here to the north of you, anyway.
With respect to that “legal system” and how it helps to maintain obstruction of justice as a matter of policy in this country to our detriment as citizens, I would here refer you to an essay entitled “SOME REFLECTIONS ON JUDGE LEARNED HAND” by Jerome N. Frank, an American legal philosopher and a federal appellate judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, circa 1-1-1957, where he stated:
He (Billings Learned Hand) added, “About trials hang a suspicion of trickery and a sense of result depending upon cajolery or worse.”
These comments open up an immense subject of which I’ll say no more than this: according to the present accepted working rules of the game, each lawyer owes a duty to his client to employ all sorts of wiles and stratagems which frequently prevent the trial judge or jury from getting as close as possible to the actual facts of a case.
end quotes
He is not talking about Muslims there, Stuart Bell.
It is not Muslims foisting that corruption off on us through Sharia law.
That corrupt system, which includes Sonia Sotomayor, is very much home-grown, and has nothing to do with Muslims at all, so talking about Muslims in here really serves no other purpose than to distract us from the real problems confronting us in this nation, which have everything to do with a corrupt federal government and judiciary that then protects corruption in the state and local governments, at least here in New York state,
So to answer your query, we do indeed know who is causing the problems.
What we don’t know, given the extent of corruption in our governments, is what to do about it.
Any suggestions, Stuart Bell?
They would be appreciated.
Stuart Bell says
If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
A Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended”.
Republicans respect their opposition’s opinion
Democrats will assault anyone who oppose them.
If Republicans have a rally, it’s peaceful and they leave the place cleaner then when they got there.
When Democrats have a rally, they loot and destroy the businesses in the area, and trash the place where they gather.
How much longer can we be forced to ‘Co-Exist’? Funny, their mantra does not match their actions.
Paul Plante says
Stuart Bell, first let me say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation for engaging in here as you have done above with your somewhat scholarly Jungian analysis of the chief psychosexual differences between card-carrying Democrats on the one hand, and card-carrying Republicans on the other, in the United States of America today.
Some very interesting reading there for those of an intellectual psychological bent.
That sure does go to show that those in here who accuse you of never engaging are dead wrong.
With that said, Stuart Bell, I wonder if you remember from your fifth grade civics class on constitutional law for school-age children in America these following words from the beginning of our nation’s political history back in 1787, to wit:
The preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of our union, and the assumption of any powers not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of Congress.
end quotes
That was Noah Webster in “A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America” on October 17, 1787, Stuart Bell.
Surely a patriotic person such as yourself cannot have forgotten those words about our responsibilities as citizens in this country to constantly scrutinize what calls itself our government, but in fact might not be, and to ask questions when and where such questions need to be asked, as in this thread, which is asking the question of why Sonia Sotomayor is still sitting on the United States Supreme Court instead of being asked to resign in disgrace.
If the preamble to the constitution is in fact declaratory of the purposes of our union, as I was taught in the fifth grade as part of my citizenship training and the assumption of any powers not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of Congress, then the assumption of power by Sonia Sotomayor in 2005 as a circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals to put the federal government stamp of approval on a policy of willful obstruction of justice in Rensselaer County in the state of New York under discussion in here was clearly unconstitutional, as it served to deprive the people of Rensselaer County in the state of New York and the children in Hoosick Falls of the honest services of an associate level public health engineer to protect and safeguard their health and water supply from chemical contamination.
But that would only be if the Preamble actually did mean something today, Stuart Bell, and sadly, it doesn’t, which is what this thread is about, in part.
In 2005, as a circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, to curry the political favor she would need to make it up to a seat on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor stuffed the Preamble to the Constitution down the judicial toilet, and now, it is a dead letter.
In doing so, Stuart Bell, Sonia Sotomayor, acting as a federal appeals court judge, dealt a death blow not to endemic public corruption threatening the public’s health in Rensselaer County in the state of New York, including those children in Hoosick Falls, but to the doctrine of state “police power,” which was adopted in early colonial America from firmly established English common law principles mandating the limitation of private rights when needed for the preservation of the common good.
Early colonial America, Stuart Bell – that was the period of time in this country leading up to the words above of Noah Webster in 1787 about the Preamble to the US. Constitution being declaratory of the purposes of our union, so that the assumption of any powers not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of Congress.
The police power, Stuart Bell, was one of the powers reserved by the states with the adoption of the federal Constitution and was limited only by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause—which mandates preeminence of federal law in matters delegated to the federal government—and the individual rights protected in the subsequent Amendments.
With respect to this discussion on obstruction of justice in New York state resulting in children in Hoosick Falls, New York drinking carcinogen-laden water through the public water supply, the application of police power has traditionally implied a capacity to (1) promote the public health, morals, or safety, and the general well-being of the community; (2) enact and enforce laws for the promotion of the general welfare; (3) regulate private rights in the public interest; and (4) extend measures to all great public needs.
That is what Sonia Sotomayor flushed down the judicial toilet in 2995, Stuart Bell – the application of police power traditionally implying a capacity to promote the public health, and the general well-being of the community.
When the police power which traditionally has implied a capacity to promote the public health, and the general well-being of the community can in fact no longer in actuality promote the public health, and the general well-being of the community, then the police power has been perverted, degraded, defeated and is dead, as a result, especially when that perverted and degraded police power is used as a political weapon against those in society who would stand up to endemic public corruption which adversely impacts the public’s health, as was the case here.
I don’t see any other way to look at it than that, Stuart Bell, which brings us back to your extensive psychiatric profiles of card-carrying Democrats versus card-carrying Republicans above here.
You use a lot of very big words to express yourself in that analysis, so of course, a total absorption of the full scope of your psychiatric analysis will take some time, but I think I at least get the gist of it, which is this: card-carrying Republicans in America today are good, holy, honorable and upright people, while card-carrying Democrats are the real basket of deplorables here in America today, regardless of what Hillary Clinton might have to say about it.
So how then does your psychiatric model explain Republican Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono being a card-carrying Republican, Stuart Bell?
Buono never even tried to hide the fact that it was his intention to prevent and obstruct Public Health Law enforcement in Rensselaer County in 1988.
To the contrary, he was very vocal about it, as was made incandescently clear in the newspaper article entitled “Buono refuses to cite developers over code” by Laurie Anderson, staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, on 19 January 1988.
So how does your model explain him being a Republican, Stuart Bell?
Would a real Republican, according to your psychiatric profile of them as good, holy, upstanding citizens, deprive children of public health protection that would cause them to be drinking carcinogen-tainted water?
If so, Stuart Bell, how can you treat them as good, holy people?
Can you help us understand that conundrum, for it is a difficult one to understand, indeed.
Is Buono then a statistical anomaly, Stuart Bell?
Or a faux Republican?
Or is your model perhaps flawed?
Chris Burns says
Mr.Bell has opened up an opportunity, time and again, to discuss topics that others will not. Namely, race, religion, sexual preference, and politics. Instead of a debate or discussion he gets hatred from the coexist crowd. Sadly enough, he has written the truth 97% of the time. I applaud him for his efforts.
In a land of fools, ignorance is truly, bliss.
Paul Plante says
With all due respect to both you and Stuart Bell, Chris Burns, race, religion and sexual preference are not really subjects for discussion, at all.
If you are not a white supremacist or a black panther, what is there about race to discuss in a public forum such as this?
What race is the best one?
By what measure?
And religion, Chris Burns?
What is there to discuss about religion in a public forum like this?
And how about sexual preference?
What of it?
I was in the Army with some real ignorant white boys from down south somewhere and their sexual preference was for various barnyard animals, and that conversation got real old, real quick.
And who wants to hear about someone else’s sexual preference in a public forum such as this?
I know I don’t, as much as you or Mr. Bell might be experts on the subject.
So, that leaves us with politics, then, a subject which most people seem totally unable of discussing without it rapidly degenerating into an infantile shouting and screaming match about which political party is the better one, when it truth, there is no real line of separation between the two that distinguishes them from each other.
As to politics in this country, which are degenerated and quite degraded, I refer you to an article from MARKETWATCH by Quentin Fottrell published June 28, 2017 wherein was quoted as follows with respect to the sorry state of our politics in this country, which is a function of people, Chris Burns:
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems more attainable overseas.
The U.S. ranked No. 19 just behind the Czech Republic, Japan and France.
The U.S. has seen its happiness slide happiness over the last decade.
“The United States can and should raise happiness by addressing America’s multi-faceted social crisis — rising inequality, corruption, isolation, and distrust — rather than focusing exclusively or even mainly on economic growth, especially since the concrete proposals along these lines would exacerbate rather than ameliorate the deepening social crisis,” the report said.
The U.S showed less social support, less sense of personal freedom, lower donations, and more perceived corruption of government and business, it said.
“America’s crisis is, in short, a social crisis, not an economic crisis…”
“Almost all of the policy discourse in Washington, D.C. centers on naïve attempts to raise the economic growth rate, as if a higher growth rate would somehow heal the deepening divisions and angst in American society.”
“This kind of growth-only agenda is doubly wrong-headed.”
end quotes
We are a nation in a serious state of decline, Chris Burns.
If you and Stuart Bell really want to make a contribution talking about politics in here, then I would suggest you start with those assertions right above here, and with respect to this thread on Obstruction of Justice, focus in on this – more perceived corruption of government and business.
Thank you very much for your interest in this important matter, it is appreciated.
Paul Plante says
And getting back to your psychoanalytical profiles above here of card-carrying Republicans and card-carrying Democrats, Stuart Bell, a psychiatric study which I think is causing a lot of persons out there in the psychiatric trade, especially the Freudians, to have to run back to the drawing board to revise their own ideas concerning the application of Jungian archetypes to politics in the United States of America today, you finish with a plaint, or plea, or perhaps a cry for help, as follows:
How much longer can we be forced to ‘Co-Exist’?
end quote
If that isn’t a cry for help, I don’t know what could be.
So who is the “we,” Stuart Bell?
That is what has people up this way befuddled right now.
Whose cry of help is that, anyway?
Who is being forced to have to co-exist with someone else?
What country is that happening in?
Is that happening here?
Are people in this country somewhere actually being forced to have to co-exist with someone else?
How can that possibly be happening here in the United States of America, the land of the brave and the home of the free, where truth, justice and the American Way are the law of the land?
With respect to that co-existence business, Stuart Bell, let me take you back once again to fifth grade civics and “A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America” by Noah Webster on October 17, 1787, where we schoolchildren up this way were treated to these following words which form, or more properly, used to form the basis of our lawful society here in this country, to wit:
But I cannot quit this subject without attempting to correct some of the erroneous opinions respecting freedom and tyranny, and the principles by which they are supported.
Many people seem to entertain an idea, that liberty consists in a power to act without any control.
This is more liberty than even the savages enjoy.
But in civil society, political liberty consists in acting conformably to a sense of a majority of the society.
In a free government every man binds himself to obey the public voice, or the opinions of a majority; and the whole society engages to protect each individual.
In such a government a man is free and safe.
But reverse the case; suppose every man to act without control or fear of punishment—every man would be free, but no man would be sure of his freedom one moment.
Each would have the power of taking his neighbor’s life, liberty, or property; and no man would command more than his own strength to repel the invasion.
end quotes
Doesn’t it seem to you, Stuart Bell, that that is where we have descended to in this country today, that last sentence, especially in light of this 2005 decision of then-federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, since elevated to the United States Supreme Court, under discussion in here where she put the federal government seal of approval on obstruction of justice in New York state – to a point where some people, people who are able to afford such protection from the law, are in fact able to act without control or fear of punishment?
Thanks to Sonia Sotomayor, Stuart Bell, those “protected” persons in New York state, at least, do now have the power of taking their neighbor’s life, liberty, or property; and no man without political protection can repel the invasion.
So who is that the cry for help is coming from?
Are the people without political protection, and thus, no justice, asking why they are being forced to have to co-exist with their oppressors, who are free to be able to act without control or fear of punishment?
If that is the case, Stuart Bell, it seems like a valid cry for help to me, anyway.
But sadly, far too late, because Sotomayor’s 2005 decision putting the federal government seal of approval on endemic public corruption in New York state, and obstruction of justice, is now law of the land, so those people making the cry for help are simply out of luck.
Sad, isn’t it, what this nation has degenerated or devolved into since Noah Webster wrote those words so very long ago now, which reminds me of a recent article in THE HILL entitled “Dem: Congress will begin impeachment if Trump fires Mueller, Rosenstein” by Brandon Carter on 17 June 2017, wherein was said as follows:
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on Friday that Congress would come together and “begin impeachment proceedings” against President Trump if he fired special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
“All Americans, regardless of party, agree on the fundamental principle that no one is above the law,” Lieu said on MSNBC.
end quote
That, of course, is not true.
Many people in this country are above the law, and clearly so.
We see that in Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) records which were before Sotomayor in 2005 where the following was noted:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OPINION:
Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA COTTRELL, Northern District of New York, advised on May 1, 1989, that no evidence of any violation of federal law had been uncovered as result of investigation to date.
For this reason, AUSA COTTRELL declined prosecution at this time.
end quotes
Think on that for a moment if you will, Stuart Bell – no evidence of any violation of federal law had been uncovered as result of investigation.
But that was not true, as can be seen from the Associated Press story “Top Philadelphia prosecutor pleads guilty, quits, is jailed” on 29 June 2017, where we were just informed as follows:
In a surprise development, the city’s top prosecutor pleaded guilty Thursday to a corruption charge, resigned from office and was sent immediately to jail by a judge who said he couldn’t be trusted.
Two weeks into his federal trial, District Attorney Seth Williams pleaded guilty to a single count of accepting a bribe from a businessman.
U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said he was not inclined to trust Williams’ assurances about appearing for sentencing set for Oct. 24, so ordered him immediately jailed.
He was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs.
Diamond said he was appalled by the evidence he heard during the jury trial, and had concluded Williams “sold” his office.
end quote
He sold his office, Stuart Bell, and got prosecuted for it by the federal government, but so too did Republican Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono sell his office, and very publicly so, telling local TV star Christine Kapostacy Jansing, now a top White House correspondent for NBC, about “eighty thousand big ones” offered to him in a meeting in the spring of 1988 by a group calling itself the Rensselaer County Development Council to suspend enforcement of the New York State Public Health Law in Rensselaer County, and in Buono’s case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which knew about the bribe as a result of the investigation, saw absolutely no problem whatsoever with Buono being offered a bribe to obstruct justice in Rensselaer County in New York state.
Why?
Because in New York state, Buono was above the law, and being above the law himself, courtesy of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Buono, and his successor, Republican Kathleen Jimino, were able to peddle protection from the law to the highest bidders.
Getting back to that recent article in THE HILL entitled “Dem: Congress will begin impeachment if Trump fires Mueller, Rosenstein” by Brandon Carter on 17 June 2017:
In the Senate, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a similar warning.
“The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired.”
“We’re a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, a lesson the president would be wise to learn,” she said.
end quotes
But as Sonia Sotomayor proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2005, Stuart Bell, we are not a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, which lesson I am sure Donald Trump is well aware of, as is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), her political rhetoric and posturing above here in THE HILL, notwithstanding.
If we were a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, then we would not have witnessed then-federal circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor, while sitting on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, putting the federal government seal of approval on the use by New York state officials of fraudulently issued New York State Mental Hygiene Law involuntary psychiatric orders to deter investigations into endemic public corruption in New York state government, which is textbook obstruction of justice.
But we do have that, thanks to Sotomayor and the federal government, so ipso facto, Stuart Bell, as the lawyer trade likes to say, which means in plain English, “by that very fact or act,” we are not a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, bull**** rhetoric of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to the contrary notwithstanding.
Which takes us, Stuart Bell, to another Associated Press article, this one entitled “Increasing threats unnerve lawmakers rattled by shooting” 17 June 2017 by Matthew Daly with contributions by Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick, where we find as follows:
Rep. Ralph Abraham, R-La., said violence — and the threat of violence — has no place in politics.
end quotes
And once again, Stuart Bell, we are confronted with yet another false or incorrect or inaccurate political statement here, again in the light of this 2005 Sotomayor decision putting the federal government seal of approval on obstruction of justice and the use of political violence in New York state to crush dissent and intimidate those who would dare to investigate endemic public corruption in New York state.
Violence, and the threat of violence, thanks to Sonia Sotomayor and the federal government of the United States of America, most certainly do have a place in New York state politics.
So, Stuart Bell, who is it that is complaining of being forced to have to co-exist with somebody else?
People would like to know, so they know which side to come down on.
Stuart Bell says
‘I was in the Army with some real ignorant white boys from down south somewhere and their sexual preference was for various barnyard animals, and that conversation got real old, real quick.
And who wants to hear about someone else’s sexual preference in a public forum such as this?
I know I don’t, as much as you or Mr. Bell might be experts on the subject.’
You crossed a line here. Do not ever make a reference to bestiality where me or my name is concerned. Do you understand me? If not, leave a phone number or address I will work with you until you do. I will not tolerate such insolence.
Paul Plante says
Insolence, Stuart Bell?
Really!
According to my dictionary, insolence is defined as rude and disrespectful behavior.
So, Stuart Bell, where on earth is the insolence here?
Help us out, because nobody I have talked to about the matter is seeing it.
Were you personally accused of beastiality?
Not that I can see unless you happened to be down at Ft. Polk, Louisiana back in January of 1968, when the conversations in question happened to be taking place.
And I was being all-inclusive there, Stuart Bell, in response to Mr. Chris Burns @ June 30, 2017 at 4:56 pm, who I quote as follows:
Mr.Bell has opened up an opportunity, time and again, to discuss topics that others will not.
Namely, race, religion, sexual preference, and politics.
Instead of a debate or discussion he gets hatred from the coexist crowd.
Sadly enough, he has written the truth 97% of the time.
I applaud him for his efforts.
end quotes
He is the one who brought your name in here with respect to the topic of sexual preferences, not I.
With respect to my response, I would focus your attention on these words of his:
Instead of a debate or discussion he gets hatred from the coexist crowd.
end quote
I would say the reason you get no response or discussion in a public forum on sexual preferences is because most people have no interest in hearing about somebody, anybody, gay, straight, bi, tri, quadro, or whatever, talking about their sex life, whether with other humans or other species.
Among most people, Stuart Bell, it is a non-subject, hence no debate or discussion.
And it is Mr. Burns that you should be taking issue with, Stuart Bell, not myself.
It is he who put you forth as some kind of expert on the subject of sexual preferences, and what I did, Stuart Bell, to help you out here, was to respond that I don’t give a damn if you happen to be the Virginia equivalent of Masters and Johnson on the subject, I personally have zero interest in hearing about it.
If you think that is “crossing a line,” I would respond by saying you have a strange-by-my-standards concept of what crossing a line really does mean.
Perhaps it was Mr. Burns who crossed a line when he said you were wrong three percent of the time, as you are here with your misplaced indignation at myself.
That will now have people wondering, Stuart Bell, each time you say something, “Wow, is this one of those three percent moments Chris Burns talked about?”
The end result of that will be people never believing a word you say from this point forward.
As to this macho posturing of yours, Stuart Bell, “Do you understand me? If not, leave a phone number or address I will work with you until you do,” really, dude, I just am not impressed.
Is that supposed to scare me?
Make me quail and shake with fear?
Make me cower in a corner?
Do you actually think you can control what I think and what I say, myself being a twice-wounded combat veteran with a Silver Star, by threatening me with a beating or whupping?
Paul Plante says
And kudos to Wayne Creed from the people of corrupt Rensselaer County in the corrupt state of New York for having the courage to run this piece on Obstruction Of Justice is a Federally-Approved Practice in the United States Of America today.
To the north of you, in the corrupt state of New York, this is the story that is not told.
HUSH!
SHHHHH!
Keep it quite, so they will not know!
Thank you Wayne Creed on behalf of the children of Hoosick Falls for breaking the silence!
Chris Burns says
Out of all those words you typed in response to Mr. Bell’s calling you out, you failed to leave a phone number or address, but then brag about being a combat vet with stars. I think they call that a Keyboard Warrior. As for my thoughts on your bestiality comment, you knew the reference you made and it’s implications. I am shocked at your lack of discretion, but I am not as kind as he is.
Paul Plante says
(Sounds of uproarious laughter!)
Whoa, sorry about that, Chris Burns, nothing intentional intended there.
It is just that your post above made me guffaw right out loud when I read it, do ridiculous was its premise, but so seriously was it presented, as if I actually owed it to some potential lunatic or psychopath trying to cyber-bully me in here to provide him with my phone number and address.
Who but a fellow lunatic or a real dim-wit would comply with such a wish, Chris Burns?
If some psychopath was pressing you for your home address and telephone number, would you actually be stupid enough yourself to give it to him?
And you expect me to be that stupid, Chris Burns?
Get real here, dude, the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action, not stupidity in action.
You don’t get the Silver Star for being stupid, Chris Bell!
Can you understand that?
Does that in any way compute for you?
Giving my address and phone number to Stuart bell would be something a real stupid person would do, and since I’m not a real stupid person, I’m not going to do it, and I could give a flying **** what you happen to think about it, because it would be similarly stupid to care about your opinion in this matter.
Somebody who would tell me that I had to do something stupid to gain his respect, as you yourself are doing here, is himself quite a stupid person, and since I don’t take direction from stupid persons, I’m not doing anything you say.
As to my thoughts on my bestiality comment, of course I knew the reference I made and it’s implications!
Do you think I am some empty-headed fool who prattles on without having a clue as to the nature of the words spilling out of his empty head?
When I wrote those words, of course I knew what I was talking about, and it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either you or Stuart Bell, so deflate your ego here because this is not about you, nor is it about sexual preferences in general or a hankering for some carnal knowledge with a barnyard animal.
The thread is on OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, Chris Burns, have you anything intelligent to say on that subject?
For you pe0ple just stopping by and wondering what the heck Chris Burns can possibly be on about, the quotes in question are as follows:
“I was in the Army with some real ignorant white boys from down south somewhere and their sexual preference was for various barnyard animals, and that conversation got real old, real quick.”
“And who wants to hear about someone else’s sexual preference in a public forum such as this?”
“I know I don’t, as much as you or Mr. Bell might be experts on the subject.”
end quotes
Now, even a person who is barely literate could see that there are two totally different thoughts being expressed in there, with THOUGHT ONE one being “I was in the Army with some real ignorant white boys from down south somewhere and their sexual preference was for various barnyard animals, and that conversation got real old, real quick,” all of which is quite t4rue and stands on its own as fact, and THOUGHT TWO being “And who wants to hear about someone else’s sexual preference in a public forum such as this?”
Apples and oranges, people, two totally separate thoughts, neither of which accuse or even intimate that Stuart Bell is associated in any way with beastiality, so it can clearly be seen that Chris Burns is intentionally insulting our intelligence in here, making us out to be ignorant dolts with his effort to turn that into a charge of beastiality against Stuart Bell, of all people.
Reading that through, one can clearly see that the subject Chris Burns and Stuart Bell might be experts on is the subject of sexual preferences in general, across the board; which broad subject has as a sub-set the category of a sexual preference for barnyard animals, as I was made witness to in January of 1968 down in Ft. Polk, Louisiana.
Thus, there is no intimation of anything concerning Stuart Bell in those three sentences other than that Chris Burns has put Stuart Bell forth in here on the subject of sexual preferences, which I in my turn have accepted him as based on the recommendation of Chris Burns that he in fact is such an expert.
So well done, Chris Burns, very well done, kudos to you for that.
A grateful nation thanks you for your continued patriotism of the occasion of the nations’ birthday, when it achieved independence from tyranny.
Stuart Bell says
‘If some psychopath was pressing you for your home address and telephone number, would you actually be stupid enough yourself to give it to him?’
Now you choose to refer to me as a psychopath? The courage of the keyboard. That keyboard sure has given you a sense of security. You Sir are a Fool.
Paul Plante says
In keeping with the topic of this thread, Stuart Bell, which is not about you, although you seem very much to want it to be about you as if you were some type of internet drama queen, according to the news this morning, a majority of Americans think civility has gotten worse since President Trump was elected, according to a new survey.
As you threaten me and tkenny with beatings or worse in here because we do not toe your line, whatever on earth it might be, were you aware of that?
Yes, indeed, Stuart Bell, it is true.
A PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist Poll found that 70 percent of Americans think civility has gotten worse since Trump’s election.
Seventy percent, Stuart Bell.
That is a lot of people, don’t you think?
Now, Stuart Bell, civility is defined as formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech, as in “I hope we can treat each other with civility and respect,” and its synonyms are courtesy, courteousness, politeness, good manners, graciousness, consideration, respect, politesse, and comity, as in “he treated me with civility,” while its antonyms are disrespect and rudeness.
Civility is also defined as polite remarks used in formal conversation, and you know what, Stuart Bell?
Where civility is defined as polite remarks used in formal conversation, perhaps there no longer is a place for it in American politics today, what with how divided this country has become.
Do you personally think civility is too old-fashioned to be of value in this country, anymore?
I’m curious as to what your answer might be on that question, just as I remain curious as to your answer to my questions above, to wit:
As to this macho posturing of yours, Stuart Bell, “Do you understand me? If not, leave a phone number or address I will work with you until you do,” really, dude, I just am not impressed.
Is that supposed to scare me?
Make me quail and shake with fear?
Make me cower in a corner?
Do you actually think you can control what I think and what I say, myself being a twice-wounded combat veteran with a Silver Star, by threatening me with a beating or whupping?
Do you, Stuart Bell?
Are you in fact a big enough fool to think or believe that you can control what I think or believe with your bullying and macho-man posturing in here?
As to psychopaths, Stuart Bell, they are defined thusly: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior, or an unstable and aggressive person.
In the light of your threatening post right above here, where you most definitely appear to be acting in an aggressive manner over imagined slights, which is something an unstable person would do, does that sound like you, do you think, Stuart Bell, especially the part about “abnormal or violent social behavior,” or an “unstable and aggressive person?”
And I am quite serious here, Stuart Bell.
Look back over your posting patterns in here, and you will see what I am talking about.
Look at your response to Dana Lascu above here, for example:
Stuart Bell says @ June 23, 2017 at 12:43 pm:
I am Free, White and Over 21.
As my people have been accused of White Privilege, I intend to take full advantage of it.
So I have every right to love or hate as I see fit.
You do not know me and from your post, I do not wish to know you.
end quote
What kind of a person hates, Stuart Bell?
Do stable, sane, well-balanced people hate?
Or do people like Dillon Roof who murdered those black folks in a church hate?
And look at your response to tkenny above here:
Stuart Bell says @ June 23, 2017 at 12:38 pm:
That diatribe was gifted to me with a request to pass it along.
If you would like to discuss my math skills please reply, leave a phone number and we shall have a nice conversation.
end quotes
Always with the macho-man stuff, aren’t you, Stuart Bell.
WHY?
Why is threatening and aggressive behavior always your answer to things in here, and presumably, out there in the world, as well?
Is it because you are simply lacking in any kind of social skills that you resort to threatening and blustering and bullying behavior all the time in here?
Is that all you know how to do?
Or is it because you simply do not give a damn about civilized society?
If it is the latter, Stuart Bell, then yes, I would say that you are certainly a candidate to be a psychopath.
And if you actually go back and really read what I posted, without flying off the handle and acting like an aggrieved berserker, which you definitely are doing here with all your threats and bluster, you will notice that I DID NOT call you a psychopath, just as I did not personally accuse you of beastiality.
Here is exactly what I said, Stuart Bell:
It is just that your post above made me guffaw right out loud when I read it, so ridiculous was its premise, but so seriously was it presented, as if I actually owed it to some POTENTIAL lunatic or psychopath trying to cyber-bully me in here to provide him with my phone number and address.
end quote
Focus on the word “POTENTIAL,” Stuart Bell, which means “having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.”
Do I think from your posting behavior in here that you have the potential to turn into a full-blown psychopath, especially in light of your threats above here, and your claim to a right to hate?
The answer to that is you’re damn right I do.
You make it abundantly clear to me, anyway, who has been among real-life psychopaths in the U.S. Army, God bless America, ain’t it just great, that you don’t give a damn about anything or anyone but yourself and your right to hate, and that in my book makes you a dangerous person, Stuart Bell, a sociopath, at the least.
And in the light of your threats in your post right above here, Stuart Bell, that is how I consider you, which is why I have no desire to talk to you about anything, really.
I am not a hater, so we have nothing in common there to talk about.
I have no problem with the fact that there are people of many different races on the face of the earth, or more properly many different ethnicities, since all humans, regardless of skin color, are one race, Stuart Bell, that being the race of humans.
So we have nothing in common there, either.
And I have no problem with the fact that there are different cultures, and when white supremacists like you talk about how great white culture is, I have to laugh right out loud, because when you look at skyscrapers and bridges to the north of you which you associate with white culture, those skyscrapers were built by among others Mohawk Indians, not white people like you.
The same with the railroad tracks through the Sierra Nevada mountains in California, which were built by Chinese people, because they had skills and knowledge working in high places with explosives and rock that white people like you just did not have.
So when you talk about how great your white culture is, Stuart Bell, frankly, you come across as an ignorant fool, so there is another name you can add to your list of grievances against me.
And no, Stuart Bell, a computer keyboard has not given me a sense of security, which is yet another thing you are wrong about in here.
What gives me a sense of security, Stuart Bell, is myself.
Stuart Bell says
Any time, any time. Your talk is cheap. Any time, any time. 🙂
Paul Plante says
“J**** c*****, Paul.”
“Why are you wasting your time on this podunk out of town newspaper?”
“I acknowledge I’ve said this before, to no avail.”
“You think Hoosick Falls is an environmental issue???”
“Several years ago, WAMC did a call in show on the Hudson/Delaware with some of the key NY environmental players and a woman who had moved to VA called.”
“She said she and her kids were fed up with what passed in VA as environmental
quality.”
end quotes
That, not surprisingly, was a local irate politician up this way this morning berating me for having the unmitigated gall to come down here to Virginia and use this so-called “podunk out of town newspaper” to spill the beans about what is going on several hundred miles to the north of you, in corrupt New York state, where thanks to Sonia Sotomayor playing politics and putting her “career” and protecting endemic corruption in New York state ahead of the lives of some children in tiny Hoosick Falls, New York, which lives she treated as worthless in her political scheme of things, those children ended up with PFOA, a carcinogen, in their blood.
As to this “podunk out of town newspaper,” I am using it to counter what can only be called “fake news” about the Hoosick Falls water contamination fiasco, not only in the Hearst Publications Albany Times Union, but in the New York Times, as well, which has been covering this groundwater contamination fiasco in corrupt Rensselaer County in corrupt New York state.
Do I think Hoosick Falls is an environmental issue?
Truthfully, to borrow from my posts above, I think even an idiot or someone insane would call it an environmental issue, so of course, being rational, I too would call it an environmental issue, for what else can you call it when a public water supply which has been in existence since 1886 is now contaminated with a carcinogen which is man-made and not naturally existing in nature?
As to that public water supply, “History of Hoosick, New York FROM LANDMARKS OF RENSSELAER COUNTY BY: GEORGE BAKER ANDERSON PUBLISHED BY D. MASON & CO. PUBLISHERS, SYRACUSE, NY 1897 CHAPTER XX. TOWN OF HOOSICK tells us as follows:
Hoosick Falls is supplied with pure water by the Hoosick Falls Water Supply company.
end quote
Pure water, people, and that is being reported in 1897, which is 120 years ago, now.
Contrast that with today, as illustrated in the news article in the Albany, Times Union entitled “Hoosick Falls residents shocked by high PFOA test results” by Amanda Fries on Monday, June 19, 2017, wherein was stated:
HOOSICK FALLS – Residents were shocked Monday when the testing of sites contaminated with a toxic manufacturing chemical revealed levels significantly higher than originally reported.
Saint Gobain’s Performance Plastics manufacturing plant on McCaffery Street in the village had at least one groundwater sampling that recorded PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, levels at 130,000 parts per trillion, seven times higher than reported nearly three years ago at 18,000 parts per trillion.
“I’m nervous and I’m saddened,” resident Michele Baker said.
“We learned how high the chemical contamination is.”
“These numbers and maps all represent family and friends.”
end quotes
Seems these Hoosick Falls residents consider it an “environmental issue” as well, regardless of what this irate local politician berating me above might think of it.
Getting back to that 1897 history, it continues as follows with respect to the Hoosick Falls water supply as it existed back then:
The source is a gigantic well twenty-five feet in diameter located on the flats above the falls.
Water is pumped into the main pipes direct, and also into a storage reservoir located on one of the eminences in the extreme eastern part of the village.
The company has about eight miles of street mains and supplies the village with eighty-eight fire hydrants.
The officers are George H. Norman, president; G. Norman Weaver, treasurer, and Ezra R. Estabrook, secretary.
The water was first turned on June 1, 1886.
The capital stock of the company is $100,000.
end quotes
So who today can say they knew nothing about this public water supply when they were dumping those chemicals into the groundwater?
And that answer will include the blind, deaf and dumb Republican-controlled Rensselaer County Department of Health, which had direct responsibility by law for protecting and safeguarding the Hoosick Falls public water supply, the worthless and ignorant New York State Department of Health, which has been corrupt since 1978, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation records, and the mis-named New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, more properly known as the New York State Department of Environmental Degradation for its very poor environmental stewardship in this state.
But for those three agencies turning their backs and looking the other way, this established public water supply could never have been contaminated with the carcinogen PFOA.
And but for Sonia Sotomayor putting the federal government seal of approval on public corruption in Rensselaer County and New York state, and obstruction of justice to protect that endemic corruption, those agencies would not have been able to turn their backs as they did, without being caught up short in a court of law, as is the case in Flint, Michigan, where public officials are facing criminal charges of involuntary manslaughter and obstruction of justice.
Said another way, in 2005, Sonia Sotomayor, then a circuit judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City had it in her power to deal public corruption in New York state adversely impacting the public’s health a death blow, and she refused to do it, putting her arm instead around the corruption that threatens the public’s health in Rensselaer County and New York state.
And that takes us back to 1988 and the obstruction of justice and open solicitation of bribes by then-Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono which started this matter that Sotomayor ruled on in 2005, and was told in the newspaper article entitled “Buono refuses to cite developers over code” by Laurie Anderson, staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, on 19 January 1988, to wit:
Rensselaer County Executive John Buono said the county will attempt to resolve differences with the developers of the Spruce Run subdivision, who allegedly have violated state Health Department codes.
Despite a state Health Department recommendation, Buono said Monday he did not intend to cite Steve Anderson of East Greenbush and his partners in developing the third phase of the 40-acre subdivision for alleged health code violations.
In a report released Friday, a state Health Department official recommended the county cite the partners for illegally entering sales contracts for 10 lots in Phase 3 that were not approved by the county Health Department because of improper drainage.
end quote
For the record, by law in New York state, Republican Rensselaer County John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono had no lawful authority, jurisdiction or discretion to obstruct a Public Health Law violation prosecution in Rensselaer County, so Sotomayor solved that problem by creating it out of thin air, or out of her ***.
That it was a Public Health Law matter outside the lawful authority, jurisdiction and discretion of Buono, a hack politician and local “tough guy,” was made clear in a letter dated February 23, 1988 on State of New York Department of Health letterhead to Mr. Duane R. Wood, Councilman, Town of Poestenkill, P.O Box 2000,
Poestenkill, New York 12140, wherein was stated:
Dear Councilman Wood:
Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1988, which we believe alludes to the controversy surrounding the proposed realty subdivision at Spruce Run in the Town of East Greenbush and the developer’s criticism of the Rensselaer County Environmental Director’s policies governing subdivision review and approval.
Our Albany Regional Office investigated the manner in which the County reviewed the Spruce Run development plan.
Our conclusion is that the County, under the direction of the environmental director, acted in accordance with State and County regulations, for protection of the public’s health.
Sincerely,
David Axelrod, M.D.
Commissioner of Health
end quotes
Protection of the public’s health!
That is what Sotomayor turned her back on in 2005 so she could prove herself politically reliable, to further her career path to a seat on the United States Supreme Court, for such is the story of how United States Supreme Court Justices are made today.
The story that is not told in corrupt New York state!
HUSH!
SHHHHH!
Keep it quiet, so they will not know!
Thankfully, this podunk out of town newspaper exists today to break the code of silence in corrupt New York statye and get this story told in all the detail the Hearst-owned Albany Times Union and the New York Times are leaving out.
So once again, thank you very much for being here, as Podunk as you might be!
Todd Holden says
You may want to take care of that pain in your legs and leave Mr. Bell alone…
Note: Okay y’all, this is the last of this…let’s let this go, and try and get along, okay? No more threats or personal attacks…Mr. Bell and Mr. Plante, okay?
Craig Richardson says
Wow…excellent Mr. Plante, my hats off to you! Typical response from Stuart Bell though. ‘I’m a tough guy, leave your address and phone number and we can settle this!’ I’m surprised he didn’t use the old ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ at some point. I wonder if Mr. Bell likes fish sticks? Hmmm…
Stuart Bell says
Let me set the record straight for the sensitive folks out there. My asking for a phone number is to try and have a conversation outside of this, moderated, forum. You people immediately think you have been threatened. Folks sure have become timid in the last half century. I am so sorry you all have been offended. That Political Correctness rears it’s head again. As for the fish sticks, I love them…..sad attempt at a very weak insinuation….try again.
Craig Richardson says
Right…conversation, is that why you ask for an address too? And trust me I’m not offended, I’m just amazed every time I read your pathetically comical posts. It’s actually quite sad that a President has made all you armchair Archie Bunkers comfortable enough to crawl out from under your rocks to attack people of different races or religions…especially when this country was built by people, and their descendants, trying to escape racial and religious persecution!
Stuart Bell says
And here we have a prime example of a conversation that needs to take place outside of this moderated forum. Thanks for making my point for me. So here it is…your open invitation. Any time you wish to talk to me about me, let me know. Oh yeah, I do not need a president to be myself. I am very, very comfortable in my skin. To quote a very wise man….’Look over that log before you leap, for you never know what is on the other side’.
Good Day to you Sir!
Stuart Bell says
Craig, you appear as nosey as an old woman I knew in Marionville….’address’ implied email. Again, a way to get that conversation away from this moderated forum. As I said…You need to look over that log before you leap……and don’t forget your open invitation.
Note: Okay, Craig and Stuart, this is the last of this. Let’s move the argument and dialog into more civil territory…maybe discussing Plante’s latest article?
Craig Richardson says
Yeah, you’re a real scary guy with your ‘open invitation’ innuendo! Talk about your keyboard warriors…give it a rest, all you do is threaten and make racist statements
Paul Plante says
Stuart Bell, speaking as one of your dearest friends and greatest fans in here, and with all due respect to your intellect, what you are saying about sharing telephone numbers to try and have a conversation outside of this moderated forum is inane, dude, where inane carries its normal meaning of silly or stupid, and readers, let me make it incandescently and irradiantly clear here that I am not accusing Stuart Bell, who I think is a dear sweet man underneath his admittedly gruff exterior, himself of being silly or stupid and perish the thought.
It is the thing about sharing phone numbers in a public forum such as this that is a silly idea because it would be sharing personal information, and I seriously doubt that Wayne Creed or any other moderator of a public forum would allow that to happen in the first place, and secondly if Wayne Creed were to allow it, the person whose number was posted would likely get flooded with all kinds of crank calls from a host of weirdos out there all claiming to be Stuart Bell, and how on earth would you ever sort them out over the phone as to who if any of them, was the real one.
There is my question for Stuart Bell here.
And Stuart Bell, speaking as probably your greatest admirer here, I think there is a growling note of menace in some of your posts that comes across as threatening in nature which has people up this way wondering who it is that you get to write your lines for you.
I said I thought it was all original stuff from yourself, which of course started the inevitable counter-argument that it was all too high class for someone outside of Hollywood to be writing, to get such powerful emotion across in so few words.
So if it isn’t giving away trade secrets, keeping in mind that you have a lot of dedicated fans out here in the candid world, perhaps you could write them a note and let them know which it is, to restore some peace in the land up here.
Stuart Bell says
‘And in the light of your threats in your post right above here, Stuart Bell, that is how I consider you, which is why I have no desire to talk to you about anything, really.’
I hear that Ginkgo Biloba helps with memory.
Paul Plante says
There are indeed a lot of good things being said on the internet these days, Stuart Bell, as you take care to point out to us above in an apparent non sequitur, that is, a statement such as your response above that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said, a case where you appear to be talking or musing to yourself, but the reality is the message is for everybody about the health and life-giving properties of Ginkgo Biloba.
Indeed, Stuart Bell, as you take care to point out to us above, for thousands of years, leaves from the Ginkgo biloba tree have been a common treatment in Chinese medicine, and thanks to Dick Nixon, Stuart Bell, who improved our relations with China, we in this country are now aware of stuff like the fact that Ginkgo biloba even exists, let alone has health benefits.
And as you say, Stuart Bell, in the U.S., here where we are in the Land of the Brave and Home of the Free where our values include Truth, Justice and the American Way, many people do take ginkgo supplements in the belief that they will improve memory and sharpen thinking.
Why do people take ginkgo, Stuart Bell?
Well, Ginkgo is said to improve blood flow to the brain and act as an antioxidant, and those effects may translate into some benefits for certain medical problems, but the results have been mixed.
Some studies have found that in healthy people, ginkgo might modestly boost memory and cognitive speed, but other studies have not found a benefit.
Several ginkgo studies have shown that it can help with memory problems caused by dementia or Alzheimer’s disease and it does seem to help prevent the progression of dementia symptoms, especially if the dementia is thought to be the result of atherosclerotic vascular disease.
It does not seem to prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s, however.
All important things for people to think about, Stuart Bell, and as you point out, they should, because losing your mental health is a pretty serious thing, especially as one gets older.
But you know where they lose me, Stuart Bell?
It is with this thing of “supplements.”
If something is a “supplement,” as a matter of principle, I won’t take it, because who knows what is in the stuff, unless you have your own lab and can constantly analyze the stuff to see what is actually in there from day to day.
Who knows but what it could be some kind of chemical sludge packaged as a supplement to gull and outwit that gullible members of our society who will believe everything in a TV commercial or political slogan.
And anyway, like a lot of things you are told about which promise you all kinds of health benefits, or huge arm muscles, or the power of ten men, I think it works on the placebo affect, to be truthful.
You think the supplement pill is improving your memory, and so it must be, but it will take another day or so for the full effects to kick in, so you are content to wait, while more of your memory slips away because you are relying on a supplement pill to save it for you, instead of your own mental faculties.
Seems like a dangerous game of Russian roulette your are playing with your future, putting your trust in a supplement pill to save your mind for you, but as you say above, Stuart Bell, this is the United States of America, and until things change for the worse, you are Free, White and Over 21, and as your people have been accused of White Privilege, you are entitled as an American citizen to take full advantage of it so that you have every right to love or hate as you see fit, and that includes your right to take Ginkgo biloba supplement tablets as many times a day as you wish, if you think it will help your mental faculties, and Stuart Bell, speaking as one of your greatest fans in here, I hope for your sake it does.
What a shame it would be if they didn’t!
Stuart Bell says
You sir, can’t even keep track of your own words….I was quoting you stating that you had no desire to talk to me about anything, and then asking me a question. I was making a suggestion that Ginkgo may help you, not me. Go reply to ‘ lil’ craig of seaview ‘.
Craig Richardson says
You really are dense…
In not so many words he’s IS saying you have mental issues and hopes that you don’t get help because you serve as entertainment…and I can see that, as a sad representation of the dying ‘good old boy’ mentality.
Stuart Bell says
Thank you Mr. Helper. I see you choose to stay in this safe, moderated arena. When you wish to have an adult conversation, please let me know. Good Luck!
Todd Holden says
It appears, to me, that Mr. Bell is living in your heads, totally rent free. I love it!
Paul Plante says
No, Craig Richardson, in not so many words, I am not saying Stuart Bell has mental issues.
To the contrary, as a Compassionate Conservative (CC in the lingo or pidgeon dialect of TWITTER-ESE as used in TWEETS by TWEETERS on TWITTER), I would not want to see Stuart Bell having any mental issues, which is why I am cautioning him as to believing Ginkgo biloba supplements are going to keep him from getting dementia.
As to cause for concern, and as a compassionate person, there is always cause for concern, I am forced to point to Stuart Bell’s post of @ July 10, 2017 at 7:53 pm, wherein he said as follows:
You sir, can’t even keep track of your own words….I was quoting you stating that you had no desire to talk to me about anything, and then asking me a question.
I was making a suggestion that Ginkgo may help you, not me.
Go reply to ‘ lil’ craig of seaview ‘.
end quotes
The truth of that matter is quite different from what Stuart Bell has posted, as we can see from the post itself he is referring to @July 3, 2017 at 6:18 pm, which began in relevant part as follows:
Do I think from your posting behavior in here that you have the potential to turn into a full-blown psychopath, especially in light of your threats above here, and your claim to a right to hate?
The answer to that is you’re damn right I do.
You make it abundantly clear to me, anyway, who has been among real-life psychopaths in the U.S. Army, God bless America, ain’t it just great, that you don’t give a damn about anything or anyone but yourself and your right to hate, and that in my book makes you a dangerous person, Stuart Bell, a sociopath, at the least.
And in the light of your threats in your post right above here, Stuart Bell, that is how I consider you, which is why I have no desire to talk to you about anything, really.
end quote
Now, there is the missing context added to what I actually did say.
As to my having absolutely no desire (a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen) to talk to Stuart Bell about anything, I made clear as to why that was as follows:
* I am not a hater, so we have nothing in common there to talk about.
* I have no problem with the fact that there are people of many different races on the face of the earth, or more properly many different ethnicities, since all humans, regardless of skin color, are one race, Stuart Bell, that being the race of humans.
* So we have nothing in common there, either.
* And I have no problem with the fact that there are different cultures, and when white supremacists like you talk about how great white culture is, I have to laugh right out loud, because when you look at skyscrapers and bridges to the north of you which you associate with white culture, those skyscrapers were built by among others Mohawk Indians, not white people like you.
* The same with the railroad tracks through the Sierra Nevada mountains in California, which were built by Chinese people, because they had skills and knowledge working in high places with explosives and rock that white people like you just did not have.
* So when you talk about how great your white culture is, Stuart Bell, frankly, you come across as an ignorant fool, so there is another name you can add to your list of grievances against me.
end quotes
From that, regardless of how much compassion I feel for Stuart Bell, and with him being a fellow human being, it is actually quite a lot, still, I am forced to admit that I see it as being impossible for Stuart Bell and I to have an adult conversation about anything at all, because we have absolutely nothing in common, at all.
So, no, Todd Holden, regardless of whose heads Stuart Bell might be living in rent-free, and God bless him if he can, if you know what I am saying, for beneath his gruff exterior, the dude is really a prince, he is not in my head, rent-free or otherwise.
It’s his own head, Todd Holden, that as a Compassionate Conservative, I am worried about, for while Stuart Bell is living in these other heads, who is living in his?
Paul Plante says
For anyone just stopping by here, I started this thread by saying that as I listen to and read about all of this HOOHAH coming out of the Ten Miles Square on the Potomac, formerly known as Washington, D.C., but more recently as Moronica on the Potomac, a strange place seething with all kinds of idiocy on a daily basis anymore, I have to wonder who all these posturing politicians down there who are rolling their eyes and tsk-tsking and stamping their feet in indignation over Donald Trump asking Jim Comey to be loyal to him instead of Obama and allegedly obstructing justice think they are kidding with all of their carefully scripted histrionics, and especially the Democrats who put Sonia Sotomayor into a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court based on a decision in a case before her as a federal circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 where obstruction of justice was front and center as an issue in that matter.
And in that context, yes, I did in fact ask Mr. Stuart Bell, who feels that folks sure have become timid in the last half century, and perhaps they have, a series of questions @ June 28, 2017 at 8:35 pm.
By way of review, they are as follows, since to this date they remain unanswered:
To establish a rational basis for those questions, I first thanked Stuart Bell on behalf of a grateful nation for engaging in here as he had done above with his somewhat scholarly Jungian analysis of the chief psychosexual differences between card-carrying Democrats on the one hand, and card-carrying Republicans on the other, in the United States of America today, stating truthfully that there was some very interesting reading there for those of an intellectual psychological bent.
I then asked Stuart Bell if he remembered from his fifth grade civics class on constitutional law for school-age children in America these following words from the beginning of our nation’s political history back in 1787, to wit:
The preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of our union, and the assumption of any powers not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of Congress.
end quotes
For anyone unfamiliar with those words, they were from Noah Webster in “A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America” on October 17, 1787.
And then I got right to the point of this thread, as follows:
Surely a patriotic person such as yourself cannot have forgotten those words about our responsibilities as citizens in this country to constantly scrutinize what calls itself our government, but in fact might not be, and to ask questions when and where such questions need to be asked, as in this thread, which is asking the question of why Sonia Sotomayor is still sitting on the United States Supreme Court instead of being asked to resign in disgrace.
There is the unanswered question people:
BASED ON HER RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES BURYING EVIDENCE AND CHANGING FACTS TO COVER OVER ENDEMIC PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN NEW YORK STATE, I.E, ENGAGING IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WHICH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY SONIA SOTOMAYOR IN 2005 HAS CONTRIBUTED TO CHILDREN IN HOOSICK FALLS, NEW YORK DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATED WITH THE CARCINOGEN PFOA, WHY IS SONIA SOTOMAYOR STILL SITTING ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT INSTEAD OF BEING ASKED TO RESIGN IN DISGRACE?
If the preamble to the constitution is in fact declaratory of the purposes of our union, as I was taught in the fifth grade as part of my citizenship training and the assumption of any powers not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of Congress, then the assumption of power by Sonia Sotomayor in 2005 as a circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals to put the federal government stamp of approval on a policy of willful obstruction of justice in Rensselaer County in the state of New York under discussion in here was clearly unconstitutional, as it served to deprive the people of Rensselaer County in the state of New York and the children in Hoosick Falls of the honest services of an associate level public health engineer to protect and safeguard their health and water supply from chemical contamination.
But as I said to Stuart Bell above, that would only be if the Preamble actually did mean something today, and sadly, it doesn’t, which is what this thread is about, in part.
In 2005, as a circuit court judge on the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, to curry the political favor she would need to make it up to a seat on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor stuffed the Preamble to the Constitution down the judicial toilet, and now, it is a dead letter.
In doing so, Sonia Sotomayor, acting as a federal appeals court judge, dealt a death blow not to endemic public corruption threatening the public’s health in Rensselaer County in the state of New York, including those children in Hoosick Falls, but to the doctrine of state “police power,” which was adopted in early colonial America from firmly established English common law principles mandating the limitation of private rights when needed for the preservation of the common good.
Early colonial America, people – that was the period of time in this country leading up to the words above of Noah Webster in 1787 about the Preamble to the US. Constitution being declaratory of the purposes of our union, so that the assumption of any powers not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, will be unconstitutional, and endanger the existence of Congress.
As I informed Stuart Bell above, the police power was one of the powers reserved by the states with the adoption of the federal Constitution and was limited only by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause—which mandates preeminence of federal law in matters delegated to the federal government—and the individual rights protected in the subsequent Amendments.
With respect to this discussion on obstruction of justice in New York state resulting in children in Hoosick Falls, New York drinking carcinogen-laden water through the public water supply, the application of police power has traditionally implied a capacity to (1) promote the public health, morals, or safety, and the general well-being of the community; (2) enact and enforce laws for the promotion of the general welfare; (3) regulate private rights in the public interest; and (4) extend measures to all great public needs.
That is what Sonia Sotomayor flushed down the judicial toilet in 2995 – the application of police power traditionally implying a capacity to promote the public health, and the general well-being of the community.
When the police power which traditionally has implied a capacity to promote the public health, and the general well-being of the community can in fact no longer in actuality promote the public health, and the general well-being of the community, then the police power has been perverted, degraded, defeated and is dead, as a result, especially when that perverted and degraded police power is used as a political weapon against those in society who would stand up to endemic public corruption which adversely impacts the public’s health, as was the case here.
As I said above, I don’t see any other way to look at it than that, which brings us back to Stuart Bell’s extensive psychiatric profiles of card-carrying Democrats versus card-carrying Republicans above here.
While he did use a lot of very big words to express himself in that analysis, the gist of his psychiatric analysis was this: card-carrying Republicans in America today are good, holy, honorable and upright people, while card-carrying Democrats are the real basket of deplorables here in America today, regardless of what Hillary Clinton might have to say about it.
Which then took us to this so-far unanswered question from myself to Stuart Bell, which I clearly recall asking him:
So how then does your psychiatric model explain Republican Rensselaer County Executive John L. “Smiling Jack” Buono being a card-carrying Republican, Stuart Bell?
Buono never even tried to hide the fact that it was his intention to prevent and obstruct Public Health Law enforcement in Rensselaer County in 1988.
To the contrary, he was very vocal about it, as was made incandescently clear in the newspaper article entitled “Buono refuses to cite developers over code” by Laurie Anderson, staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union, on 19 January 1988.
So how does your model explain him being a Republican, Stuart Bell?
Would a real Republican, according to your psychiatric profile of them as good, holy, upstanding citizens, deprive children of public health protection that would cause them to be drinking carcinogen-tainted water?
If so, Stuart Bell, how can you treat them as good, holy people?
Can you help us understand that conundrum, for it is a difficult one to understand, indeed.
Is Buono then a statistical anomaly, Stuart Bell?
Or a faux Republican?
Or is your model perhaps flawed?
Paul Plante says
And staying for the moment with my premise that the Ten Miles Square on the Potomac, formerly known as Washington, D.C., now known as Moronica on the Potomac, has now devolved into a strange place seething with all kinds of idiocy on a daily basis anymore, this in response to a recent article in the supposedly venerable New York Times entitled “Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton” by Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman on 9 July 2017, which was followed up almost verbatim by THE WASHINGTON POST in an article entitled “Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times” by some dude or dudette named Callum Borchers on 10 July 2017, wherein we were fed a statement that “The Times on Sunday reported that the president’s eldest son was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016,” and “As Times reporters Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman explained, Trump Jr.’s motivation for agreeing to the meeting ‘points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians,'” and “The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help,” I have to ask, “Russian help with exactly what?
And I have to say that as a loyal American citizen, were I in the shoes of Trump Jr. and a real high-powered Russian lawyer or lawyerette said to be closer to Putin than his own skin let me know he or she had information damaging to Hillary Rodham Clinton, in that it showed that Hillary and the Democrat National Committee were taking pay-offs from the Russians who were funding both HILLARY and Obama’s DNC, you’re damn right, New York Times and Washington Post, I would take the meeting.
Why not, if Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee were in collusion with the Russians to violate our laws and harm our Republic?
Wouldn’t it in fact be my patriotic duty as a loyal American citizen to go to that meeting and obtain that evidence?
I think it would, anyway, based on my own moral compass.
And ONCE I had that actual evidence in hand, as opposed to some surmisal about evidence or promise of evidence, then I would have done my duty as a loyal American citizen by taking that evidence to the FBI, which then raises the question of what exactly the FBI would or could do with that evidence, especially in the case of Hillary Clinton, who was Obama’s hand-picked successor, as well as the wife of the fabulously rich and politically powerful Bill “BUBBA” Clinton, an ex-president of the United States of America.
And taking that evidence to the FBI would likely put my life in danger, as there would be sure to be reprisals, and there is a good chance the FBI would simply look the other way, because truthfully, that was our experience with them in connection with giving them hard evidence of public corruption up here in New York State, which evidence did get buried, as is discussed above here in connection with Sonia Sotomayor assisting in obstructing justice in New York state while a circuit judge with the federal 2d Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC in 2005, because the FBI is controlled by the political appointee lawyers and lawyerettes of the so-called and misnamed “U.S. Dept. of Justice.”
And in the case of Hillary, as with so much else she did that was questionable or outside the laws that govern regular people in this country who do not have the white privilege of Hillary Clinton, there is every reason to believe that it would be covered up.
But still, if I had such evidence that Hillary and the DNC were being paid by the Russians, I would do all in my power, including taking that evidence to the NY TIMES and WASHINGTON POST to do as much damage to the HILLARY Campaign as I could, because who in their right mind in this country would want some Russian dupe sitting in the office of the United States president, which would go for Trump, as well, if he is one.
So what is all the fuss about, then, one must wonder, being created by the NY Times and Washington Post about Trump Jr. taking that meeting?
According to the NY Times story, we have as follows concerning that meeting:
The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.
end quote
Some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help?
In the light of the allegation that Hillary Clinton and the DNC were being financed by the Russians, what kind of an inane statement it that?
If the Russian help in question was in exposing Hillary Clinton as a paid foreign agent, then it seems, contrary to the un-American-seeming position being taken by the NY Times and Washington Post that the Trump campaign was duty-bound to accept that help.
The NY Times article continued as follows:
In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance.
“After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.”
“Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense.”
“No details or supporting information was provided or even offered.”
“It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian hackers and propagandists worked to tip the election toward Mr. Trump, in part by stealing and then providing to WikiLeaks internal Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails that were embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton.
On Sunday morning on Fox News, the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, described the Trump Tower meeting as a “big nothing burger.”
Because he does not serve in the administration and does not have a security clearance, Donald Trump Jr. was not required to disclose his foreign contacts.
end quote
So it was all a HOAX and thus, a “big nothing burger” seems to sum it all up quite precisely, which causes one to have to wonder what game the NY Times and Washington Post are really playing at here, then, given they knew it was a hoax?
Are they saying, as it seems they are saying, that Hillary Clinton is a “protected person” which makes her an untouchable, so that all damaging information about Hillary would have to be suppressed and kept secret?
From all their HOO-HAH, that is the message I am getting, anyway.
And that takes me to these two following lines from an article in THE ROOT entitled “DNC Fraud Lawsuit is the Biggest Story in Politics that No One is Talking About” by Jason Johnson on 7 July 2017, to wit:
It’s almost impossible to sue political parties and politicians in America because of our inherent cynicism about how politics actually work.
Judges are loathe to get involved in intra-party squabbles and the law tacitly assumes a certain amount of shadiness, lying and chicanery in the political process.
end quotes
Actually, the law, which is administered by judges supplied by the two political factions which have stolen our Republic from us and replaced it with their democracy, openly, not tacitly, assumes a whole lot of shadiness, lying and chicanery in the political process, and that is because rags like the NY Times and Washington Post are willing to go along to get along by accepting that themselves, and keeping their eyes closed to it and backs turned to it, as they seem to be doing here with their attack on Trump Jr. because he went looking for information damaging to dear precious Hillary Clinton.
And all this HOO-HAH about the Trump campaign and the Hillary campaign takes me back to this nation’s beginning, in a “Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America” by Noah Webster October 17, 1787, wherein was stated as follows concerning the selection of the chief executive officer of this nation:
It is worth our while to institute a brief comparison between our American forms of government, and the two best constitutions that ever existed in Europe, the Roman and the British.
In England, the king or supreme executive officer, is hereditary.
In America, the president of the United States, is elective.
That this is an advantage will hardly be disputed.
In ancient Rome, the king was elective, and so were the consuls, who were the executive officers in the republic.
But they were elected by the body of the people, in their public assemblies; and this circumstance paved the way for such excessive bribery and corruption as are wholly unknown in modern times.
The president of the United States is also elective; but by a few men—chosen by the several legislatures—under their inspection—separated at a vast distance—and holding no office under the United States.
Such a mode of election almost precludes the possibility of corruption.
Besides, no state however large, has the power, of chusing a president in that state; for each elector must choose at least one man, who is not an inhabitant of that State to which he belongs.
The crown of England is hereditary—the consuls of Rome were chosen annually—both these extremes are guarded against in our proposed constitution.
The president is not dismissed from his office, as soon as he is acquainted with business—he continues four years, and is re-eligible, if the people approve his conduct.
Nor can he canvass for his office, by reason of the distance of the electors; and the pride and jealousy of the states will prevent his continuing too long in office.
The president of the United States is elective, and what is a capital improvement on the best governments, the mode of chusing him excludes the danger of faction and corruption.
As the supreme executive, he is invested with power to enforce the laws of the union and give energy to the federal government
end quote
In the light of all this political bull**** we are fed these days by the Democrat faction, the Republican faction, the New York Times and the Washington Post, what empty words those turned out to be.
Paul Plante says
And my goodness, people, what am I thinking here – of course Hillary Clinton is a “protected person” which makes her an untouchable, so that all damaging information about Hillary would have to be suppressed and kept secret.
Why?
Well, let’s see, she is special, because she is the only Hillary Clinton we have in this nation, and she was a Democrat presidential contender, twice, actually, and when somebody is a Democrat presidential contender, only good things can be said about them, because those are the rules of proper etiquette in American politics today in our sacred “democracy,” where obstruction of justice has become an institutionalized and court approved practice because nobody in this country knows what justice is anymore, and what you don’t know about can’t be taken away or obstructed in any way.
That Hillary was a protected person was made very clear to us by none other than THE WASHINGTON POST in the story “James Comey testifies: Former FBI director says he could not trust Trump to tell the truth” by Devlin Barrett, Ellen Nakashima and Ed O’Keefe on 8 June 2017, wherein we were informed as follows:
The former director also divulged new details about his concerns about former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch’s handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server during the Obama administration.
While the case was ongoing, Lynch asked him to refer to the Clinton email probe as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.”
Comey said he was concerned by Lynch’s instruction that he refer to it as a “matter” because the wording too closely tracked how the Clinton campaign was trying to describe the FBI investigation.
The former FBI director said he thought that wording “looked silly’’ and “gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way the campaign’’ talked about it.
“That was inaccurate,’’ he said.
“That gave me a queasy feeling.’’
end quote
Actually, that was a case of Loretta Lynch using her office as U.S. Attorney General to obstruct justice in the case of Hillary Clinton, but we don’t ever really talk about that because like in the case of Sonia Sotomayor in 2005 burying evidence and changing facts to protect endemic public corruption in New York state, what Loretta Lynch was doing was “good” obstruction of justice, as opposed to the “bad” obstruction of justice Trump et al. are accused of today, and in American politics as they exist today, it is very important to know the difference between the two.
And according to the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH story “Schiff got a ‘queasy feeling’ from Obama’s AG” on 25 June 2017, Comey wasn’t the only one who was made to feel queasy by Loretta Lynch’s attempts to obstruct justice for Hillary Clinton:
In an interview with Dana Bash, Rep. Adam Schiff says he was also unsettled by Obama AG telling Comey to call Clinton investigation a “matter.”
end quotes
Schiff, a Democrat, was unsettled by that, but being a GOOD Democrat as opposed to a BAD Democrat, Schiff knew enough to keep his mouth shut when it comes to investigating her conduct in the matter, because when you are a Democrat, you don’t talk smack about another Democrat, period, because those are the rules of etiquette in American politics today – you put on the HUSH and just keep on trucking, never looking back.
So, people, in the light of that reality, given that the Democrats controlled both the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and don’t kid yourself that the FBI does not play at politics, what does anyone think would have happened if Trump Jr. hadn’t been hoaxed by the Russian lawyerette, and evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary really did exist, and Trump Jr. had taken that evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary to the FBI?
Paul Plante says
Rep. Adam Schiff of California said whether Akhmetshin is connected to Russian intelligence or not “it is clear the Kremlin got the message that Donald Trump welcomed the help of the Russian government in providing dirt on Hillary Clinton.”
That is a line from an Associated Press article entitled “Russian-American lobbyist joined Trump’s son’s meeting, too” by DESMOND BUTLER and CHAD DAY on 14 JULY 2107.
Trump was welcoming the help of the Russian government, which is an investor in the U.S. economy, lending the United States government the money it needs to function, in providing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, as if we are talking about some Hollywood gossip here, and you know what, people, in American presidential politics today, where Hillary Clinton is involved, that is something you just don’t do, dig up dirt on Hillary, especially from the Russian government, because it goes against the rules of etiquette of American presidential politics today, at least where Hillary Clinton, who is as pure as driven snow, is involved.
So what was this dirt Trump was welcoming the help of the Russian government in digging up?
For that answer, we need to go back to that Associated Press article, where we find as follows:
A prominent Russian-American lobbyist and former Soviet military officer attended a meeting with President Donald Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign chairman last year, the lobbyist said Friday, adding a new wrinkle to the Trump team’s evolving explanations about the June 2016 session.
Rinat Akhmetshin confirmed his involvement to The Associated Press in an interview.
He had not been previously identified as a participant in the meeting at Trump Tower in New York, which was billed as part of a Russian government effort to help the Republican’s White House campaign.
The meeting has heightened questions about whether Trump’s associates coordinated with Russia to meddle in the presidential election — to help him and thwart Hillary Clinton — and whether they’ve been forthcoming about their foreign contacts.
end quotes
Wow and Holy Cow, people, you know what I am saying here – look at that, pretty damning stuff, alright – Trump associates coordinated with Russia to thwart Hillary Clinton, who just happened to be Barack Hussein Obama’s chosen successor as United States president.
So who is this Akhmetshin dude, then, and more to the point, what does he know that we did not know before about this so-called “dirt” Trump was digging up on Hillary?
According to the Associated Press, we have this:
Akhmetshin has been reported to have ties to Russian intelligence agencies, a characterization he dismisses as a “smear campaign.”
He’s a well-known Washington presence, lobbying for Russian interests trying to undermine the allegations of a lawyer who died in a Russian prison and is the namesake of a U.S. sanctions law.
Akhmetshin told the AP he served in the Soviet military in a unit that was part of counterintelligence but he was never formally trained as a spy.
end quotes
So that is who that dude is, now on to what it was he knew that we did not know about that meeting where the Russians aided Trump with dirt on Hillary:
In emails posted by Donald Trump Jr. earlier this week, a music publicist said he arranged the meeting because a Russian lawyer wanted to pass on negative information about Democrat Clinton.
The go-between stated that the discussion was part of a Russian government effort to help the GOP candidate.
While Trump Jr. has confirmed that Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was in the meeting, he has not disclosed Akhmetshin’s presence.
The president’s son has publicly discounted the meeting, saying he did not receive the information he was promised.
In a statement Sunday, Trump Jr. said the attorney had said she had information that people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Clinton, a description that Akhmetshin backed up in his interview with the AP.
end quotes
Now, people, there is the “dirt” on Hillary that has this Rep. Adam Schiff of California all excited and outraged here: the attorney said she had information that people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Clinton.
Now, is that “dirt,” people, or is that a national security issue?
And why would Rep. Adam Schiff of California want to keep that covered up, if in fact people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Clinton?
Why does he want the HUSH put on that, people?
Cui bono (who benefits), as the lawyer trade is want to say.
According to the Associated Press article:
In his first public interview about the meeting, Akhmetshin said he accompanied Veselnitskaya to Trump Tower where they met an interpreter.
Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democrats, Akhmetshin said.
Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign, he said.
“This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,” Akhmetshin recalled her saying.
end quote
There is the dirt on Hillary Clinton that has this Rep. Adam Schiff of California all upset and outraged.
But WHY, people?
If illicit funds were in fact flowing to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, wouldn’t it be the right thing to do for Rep. Adam Schiff of California to have that exposed and investigated, not covered up?
And should the dude be using his congressional office to cover it up by going after Trump Jr. for exposing it?
Something to think about, anyway, as this bizarre story keeps unfolding.
Paul Plante says
And OMG, people, if you know what I am saying here!
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for Team Trump, of course the WASHINGTON POST -DEMOCRACY DIES UNDER A MOUNTAIN OF MSM BULL****, is going to make it out to be even worse than we already thought it was, which was already pretty bad.
Case in point is this latest article from the Washington Post entitled “Eighth person in Trump Tower meeting is identified” by Rosalind S. Helderman, 18 July 2017, where the following breaking news has been revealed about that meeting Trump Jr. took with the Russian lawyerette, who had told Trump Jr. that she had information that people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Hillary Clinton:
An American-based employee of a Russian real estate company took part in a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr., bringing to eight the number of known participants at the session that has emerged a key focus of the investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian.
end quotes
OMG all over again, people!
There were eight people in that meeting, not just a couple of them, as we thought last week, or was it the week before when we thought that?
Anyway, now we know that one of them was an American-based employee of a Russian real estate company, which makes something that already sounded very sinister sound even more sinister than that, and that is really saying something about just how serious this is as a threat to our democracy which is being distorted all out of shape by this RUSSIA-GATE thing involving Trump Jr., the Russian lawyerette, and now, an American-based employee of a Russian real estate company.
And people, you guessed it, it doesn’t stop there when it comes to being one of the most sinister things to ever happen in American presidential politics, not by a long shot, as we can see from this following from that same Washington Post article:
Donald Trump Jr. agreed to take the meeting on the promise that he would be provided damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government to help his father’s presidential campaign, according to emails released by Trump Jr. last week.
Rob Goldstone, a music promoter, told Trump Jr. in an email that his client, Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop star, requested that Trump Jr. meet with the lawyer.
end quotes
WHOA!
Talk about sinister, just look at that – Trump Jr. was meeting with the Russian lawyerette who had told Trump Jr. that she had information that people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Hillary Clinton because Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop star, requested that Trump Jr. meet with the lawyer to get that “dirt” on Hillary.
Talk about nefarious plots, people, that pretty much has to take the cake, don’t you think.
Now we have a Russian pop star joining this grand conspiracy or cabal along with an American-based employee of a Russian real estate company and Trump Jr. to thwart Hillary Clinton so she couldn’t be the American president.
Talk about distorting our democracy, alright, that just about does it in so far as I can see.
But since the Washington Post makes it profits off of sensationalism, of which there is plenty in this on-going drama, I am sure this story is far from over, as we are likely to hear from either the Washington Post, or the New York Times, which broke this breaking story in the first place, so all I can say is stay tuned, more is yet to come.
Paul Plante says
In one of those many cosmic confluences of events so closely associated with the Cape Charles Mirror that there is no scalpel sharp enough to separate the two, it seems quite relevant in the wake of this so-called Mueller Report, which is considered a joke here in the wilds of New York to the north of you, for this thread to once more see the light of day, since this brings us full circle back to the beginnings of this Mueller farce.
Paul Plante says
And to bring this thread up to date on this subject of ALLEGED “obstruction of justice” by Trump, in an article entitled “Here are the 10 ‘episodes’ Mueller probed for potential obstruction by Trump” by Brett Samuels on 18 April 2019, The Hill gives us this concise and handy summary to consider, to wit:
Here are the 10 incidents involving Trump that Mueller raised and Barr reviewed related to potential obstruction of justice, according to a redacted version of the report:
* Conduct involving former FBI Director Comey and former national security adviser Michael Flynn
* Trump’s reaction to continuing Russia investigation
* The president’s termination of Comey as FBI chief
* The appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him
* Attempts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation
* Efforts to prevent disclosure of evidence related to events like the Trump Tower meeting
* Further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation
* Efforts to have former White House counsel Don McGahn deny the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed
* Conduct toward Flynn, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and an unnamed individual
* The president’s conduct involving his former personal attorney Michael Cohen
Paul Plante says
So, with that template above as to what the Democrats are now calling “obstruction of justice” by Trump, which according to the Democrat theory of “justice,” includes “the president’s conduct involving his former personal attorney Michael Cohen,” who happens to be guilty of tax evasion, fraud, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations, which makes him a darling of the Democrat party, which is portraying Micheal as a TRUMP VICTIM, REAL AMERICAN HERO and SUPER PATRIOT, let’s go back and see where we are since JULY 18, 2017 AT 9:00 PM, where we had this essential background, to wit:
And OMG, people, if you know what I am saying here!
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for Team Trump, of course the WASHINGTON POST -DEMOCRACY DIES UNDER A MOUNTAIN OF MSM BULL****, is going to make it out to be even worse than we already thought it was, which was already pretty bad.
Case in point is this latest article from the Washington Post entitled “Eighth person in Trump Tower meeting is identified” by Rosalind S. Helderman, 18 July 2017, where the following breaking news has been revealed about that meeting Trump Jr. took with the Russian lawyerette, who had told Trump Jr. that she had information that people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Hillary Clinton:
An American-based employee of a Russian real estate company took part in a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr., bringing to eight the number of known participants at the session that has emerged a key focus of the investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian.
end quotes
Now, focus on that sentence a moment as we consider where we are today and how we got to here, and I am specifically referring to the phrase, “an American-based employee of a Russian real estate company.”
Was that person a SPY, perhaps, sent here under the guise of a harmless real estate tout, when in fact he or she was a real deep cover KGB asset sent here by Putin, himself former KGB, and hey, as everybody who is anybody knows, once in, always in, to seduce Trump in some way to turn him into a Russian dupe (a victim of deception) and tool?
That seems to be the operative theory of the Democrats here, anyway, the collusion that then leads us to the obstruction of justice, which of course leads straight to the dreaded “I-word,” IMPEACHMENT, when then brings us up to date by leading us to an article in THE HILL entitled “Ocasio-Cortez says she will sign Trump impeachment resolution” by Rachel Frazin on 19 April 2019, where we have as follows:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that she would sign on to a resolution calling for an investigation into whether President Trump should be impeached, citing special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in her decision-making.
“Mueller’s report is clear in pointing to Congress’ responsibility in investigating obstruction of justice by the President,” she tweeted.
“It is our job as outlined in Article 1, Sec 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution,” the progressive lawmaker added.
“As such, I’ll be signing onto @RashidaTlaib’s impeachment resolution.”
end quotes
So there is Democratic Socialist superstar, media darling and TWITTER QUEEN being the first away from the starting line as it were to get this whole IMPEACHMENT shebang for obstruction of justice rolling, which in turn takes us to a Washington Post article entitled “Mueller report lays out obstruction evidence against the president” by Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky on 19 April 2019, to wit:
The long-awaited report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III details abundant evidence against President Trump, finding 10 episodes of potential obstruction but ultimately concluding it was not Mueller’s role to determine whether the commander in chief broke the law.
“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” Mueller’s team stated in the report submitted to Congress on Thursday.
“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
end quotes
So, let’s do some necessary pondering here as responsible AMERICAN citizens, regardless of political ideology, as to exactly what facts and applicable legal standards AOC and the Democrats are going to apply to determine that an impeachable act has occurred, which would involve high crimes and misdemeanors, when a legal HOT SHOT like Mueller and all the Clinton Democrat lawyers on his investigatory team could not determine whether a crime had been committed, which brings us back to the Washington Post article as follows:
Since Mueller ended his investigation last month, a central question facing the Justice Department has been why Mueller’s team did not reach a conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice.
end quotes
So, people, if that is in fact a central question facing the Department of Justice, wouldn’t that be a central question facing AOC and the Democrats who are salivating to bring IMPEACHMENT charges again st Trump in retaliation for him stealing the election from Hillary, who was Obama’s chosen successor to carry on his legacy of incompetence?
And of course it would, which brings us back to this then from the Washington Post, to wit:
The issue was complicated, the report said, by two key factors — the fact that, under department practice, a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, and that a president has a great deal of constitutional authority to give orders to other government employees.
end quotes
Now, people, there is a sentence which demands some close scrutiny from each and every American citizen over the age of 18: if in fact a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, and a president has a great deal of constitutional authority to give orders to other government employees, then how are AOC and the foul-mouthed Rashida Tlaib and the Democrats going to find him guilty of a crime so that he can be impeached?
Getting back to the Washington Post:
Mueller’s report suggests his obstruction of justice investigation was heavily informed by an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted — a conclusion Mueller’s team accepted.
“And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” Mueller’s team wrote.
end quotes
To impeach Trump, AOC and the foul-mouthed Rashida Tlaib, who on 3 January 2019, announced to the whole candid world that “we’re (the Democrats) gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf—–.” that before there was any basis other than animus (hostility or ill feeling) for impeaching Trump, have to make a federal criminal accusation against a Trump that would place burdens on Trump’s’s capacity to govern, which very much is the intent here, as the Democrats maneuver to take control of the White House in the 2020 presidential election, which takes us to a CNN article entitled “Elizabeth Warren calls for House to begin impeachment proceedings on Trump” by MJ Lee, CNN Political Correspondent, on 20 April 2019, to wit:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren called on the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump Friday.
“The Mueller report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help.”
“Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack,” the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate wrote on Twitter.
“Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: ‘Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.'”
“The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.”
end quotes
WOW, HOLY COW, ZOUNDS and some other stuff, as well, like HOLY ****, people, when it is a Harvard law professor like Elizabeth Ann Warren, born June 22, 1949, an American politician and academic who is a graduate of the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School who taught law at several universities, including the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University, now serving as the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts since 2013 and formerly a prominent scholar specializing in bankruptcy law as well as a noted progressive leader who has focused on consumer protection, economic opportunity, and the social safety net while in the Senate, with some commentators describing her position as left-wing populism, you just got to know that Trump is in some real serious trouble here, and deep, which takes us back to the CNN article as follows:
Prior to this week, Warren — like many other Democrats — had consistently said that she would first need to first see the full report by special counsel Robert Mueller before drawing any conclusions on whether Congress should consider impeachment proceedings against the President.
That question has been a divisive one for Democrats in Washington, with many in the party urging caution.
Warren’s call for impeachment proceedings could foreshadow other national Democrats — including additional presidential candidates — following suit in the coming days.
The Massachusetts Democrat said on Twitter: “To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways.”
end quotes
Except there was NO COLLUSION and no DISLOYAL behavior, but hey, they are Democrats, so that don’t matter!
Getting back to CNN:
Warren, a vocal critic of Trump, also said that the “the severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty.”
“That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.”
According to a Warren aide, the senator, who was flying back to Boston from Salt Lake City on Thursday, began reading the redacted Mueller report on the plane.
She continued reading into the night after getting home.
When she was finished, she felt it was her “duty” publicly share her thoughts, the aide added.
The aide also told CNN that Warren’s decision to call on impeachment proceedings does not mean that the topic of impeachment will become the central theme of her 2020 campaign going forward.
Warren plans to continue to roll out major policy proposals and discuss on the stump how she believes Washington is “broken,” according to the aide.
end quotes
Which brings us back to the Washington Post, then, as follows:
Mueller’s team wrote that they “determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”
They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong — deciding, essentially, that they wouldn’t decide.
“Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against determining ‘that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.’”
end quotes
Contrast that language with the call for impeachment by Democrat presidential contender Elizabeth Warren based on her legal determination and public accusation that Trump has in fact, in her studied and learned judgement, committed high crimes and misdemeanors by obstructing justice, and there you will see the stage is set for what is yet to come, to please, stay tuned and don’t touch that dial, because as was said above, since the Washington Post makes it profits off of sensationalism, of which there is plenty in this on-going drama, I am sure this story is far from over, and as we can clearly see, it is not.
Paul Plante says
And while we are considering this hysterical shrieking by Democrat presidential contender Elizabeth “Lizzie” Warren about Trump allegedly being “DISLOYAL” to America, which is a very serious charge indeed, let us go back in time a bit as we can do in here thanks to the internet, and give some further careful scrutiny to that Washington Post article entitled “Eighth person in Trump Tower meeting is identified” by Rosalind S. Helderman on July 18, 2017, where we have as follows:
An American-based employee of a Russian real estate company took part in a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr., bringing to eight the number of known participants at the session that has emerged a key focus of the investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian.
Ike Kaveladze’s presence was confirmed by Scott Balber, an attorney for Emin and Aras Agalarov, the Russian developers who hosted the Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
Balber said Kaveladze works for the Agalarovs’ company and attended as their representative.
Balber said Tuesday that he received a phone call from a representative of Special Counsel Robert Mueller over the weekend requesting the identity of the Agalarov representative , which he said he provided.
The request is the first public indication that Mueller’s team is investigating the meeting.
end quotes
Now given that this meeting figures prominently in the Democrat charges of collusion and obstruction of justice, let’s do some necessary recapitulation here, where we have as follows:
* According to the vaunted Washington Post, a partisan political rag that does not seem to remember today what it printed yesterday, as of 18 July 2017, almost two years ago now by my calendar, anyway, the famous fabulous Mueller Investigatory team composed of Clinton Democrat lawyers knew all about the Trump Tower meeting, including who was there; and
* There was no apparent effort made by Team Trump to hide anything from Team Mueller.
So much for obstruction of justice, which brings us back to the 18 July 2017 Washington Post article, as follows:
Donald Trump Jr. agreed to take the meeting on the promise that he would be provided damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government to help his father’s presidential campaign, according to emails released by Trump Jr. last week.
Rob Goldstone, a music promoter, told Trump Jr. in an email that his client, Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop star, requested that Trump Jr. meet with the lawyer.
The full list of the participants has remained a mystery until now, despite a statement from Trump Jr. that he was releasing his emails in an effort to be “transparent” about the meeting, which he has said amounted to nothing.
Balber said Kaveladze works as a vice president focusing on real estate and finance for the Agalarov’s company, the Crocus Group.
Aras Agalarov requested that Kaveladze attend the meeting on his behalf, Balber said.
Kaveladze is a U.S. citizen and has lived in this country for many years, according to Balber, who is said he is representing the man.
end quotes
Kaveladze is a U.S. citizen and has lived in this country for many years?
Wait a minute, people, I thought he was a Russian spy of some sort, and here it turns out he was an American citizen doing his duty as an American citizen to inform the Trump campaign that it very much looked like Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee were in bed with Putin and the Russians.
My goodness, then, how that got spun around by the Democrats, and no wonder.
Getting back to the Washington Post of 18 July 2017, we have further as follows::
Balber said Kaveladze believed he would act as a translator, but arrived to discover that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya had brought her own translator, a former State Department employee named Anatoli Samochornov.
Samochornov has declined to comment, citing a non-disclosure agreement he signed as a professional translator.
end quotes
HUH?
A former State Department employee named Anatoli Samochornov was at the meeting?
WTF, people – does that mean that this Anatoli Samochornov who was at the Trump Tower meeting had been an employee of Hillary Clinton when she was Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State?
Where is anything about that connection in all this screeching being done by these rabid Democrats who are accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge?