paulatoo

[paulatoo]

No matter what side you're on in the women's health/abortion debate this "leak" of a Supreme Court decision draft is a bad thing.

At least the court verified it. That is a good thing, especially in this environment of so much misinformation floating around. BUT no matter what the court ultimately decides the draft is still going to be fuel for entirely too many fires of misinformation.

Of course we'll have to wait for the results of the investigation to even hazard any kind of educated guess about why it was leaked and what their intent or hope was. That's the problem though, too many people aren't really into waiting, or investigations, factual information, verification and all the other things that are important for making good decisions.

I think maybe we should just take it to a vote, like a proposition, or perhaps propositions. Put out accurate and factual information about each part of the proposed legislation and let everyone vote on it in the fall elections. Keep it clinical and emotionless, supported by facts and statistics, then let the people vote on it.

I keep hearing the majority are in favor of choice, so why not just put it to a vote? Although I would advise just asking questions on the ballot like: Should a mother whose life is endangered by the pregnancy be forced to continue with the pregnancy? What about: Should the mother be forced to continue with the pregnancy if she already has some children? for example.

I think approaching it question by question like that may come up with the most agreeable legislation, based on the votes for each portion of the proposition or propositions. Might also make everyone think a little bit harder. No catchy phrases there, no simple slogans just to rally behind and push a button or check a box.

I know this might sound like a really stupid question, but does plan b count as an abortion? I guess I've got more research to do since last time I looked at the current abortion statistics it said that the majority of abortions being conducted are being done chemically. Unfortunately they didn't specify when in the course of the pregnancy that was. So now I have the depressing task of trying to sort out exactly what that means. Are they including plan b as an abortion or just birth control?

Back to this problem with the leak. Now the same population that depresses me every time mask regulations, vaccine regimens, treatment protocols or any other covid-19 pandemic related procedures or advice changes and widespread confusion is reported; is getting an in-progress, behind the scenes, glimpse and how the Supreme Court works. Actually the biggest part of the problem is probably that not everybody is getting the information that this is a work in progress.

I mean back in 2020 they came out and said this is a new disease we don't know very much about it regarding Covid 19. They even followed it up with attempts at more transparency, involving people more in the process, and the progress, and still people are running around acting like any change in information negates everything previous to it???

To be honest it didn't help that it was the Trump administration trying to find their way through it. Then again I'm kind of betting that so many of the people who were protesting for their right not to wear a mask, to be permitted to help continue to spread a deadly disease, are also protesting to prevent anyone from ending a pregnancy.

So America how are we going to get past this leak? Can everyone get on the same page that it's a work in progress? Thankfully I saw a reminder of that on NBC News, hopefully they and all the other news agencies will keep reminding everyone of how the Supreme Court goes back and forth in writing before a final decision.

I think that would be really helpful for everyone to be on the same page with where we're at in the decision making process. Unfortunately though an entirely too large percentage of people still think that something nefarious went on in the 2020 election that cost president Trump re-election vs. all the nefarious things that went on in the four years he was in office and before. Hopefully they'll be looking at the registration numbers for republicans and their respective States before the primaries and election this year.

In the meantime I guess we'll research and wait and debate. Keep in mind no mandate doesn't mean it's not a good idea, just that you don't have to.

[paulatoo]

This may not seem political but I bet it is. (and why I'm wishing I was using a perpetually powered device to write it on)

Why aren't all the electrical vehicles being produced today being fitted with small or mini wind turbines, or in the case of boats hydro turbines perhaps, as generators? Once the vehicles are in motion they could be used to power or perpetually charge their batteries. This has been a source of frustration for me for years.

Thankfully we're moving past it, and progress is being made in the smaller scale power generator sector, but I believe part of the problem comes from many people believing that power generators needed to be huge. However, when you're generating power for very localized use to the item that you're powering, you don't need such scale. Especially when you're tailoring it to individual items instead of multiple items in multiple households.

Another name for a car's alternator is generator and they're using the rotations of the engine to spin the generator that sends the power to keep your battery charged and to provide power to the vehicle. So why can't we use similar sized items that have fan style turbine blades to capture the wind or water to turn them? You could even connect them in series if needed, utilizing the exhaust from one turbine to power others. Once the vehicles are in motion you have a plentiful, even if variable speed, supply of wind or water to power these turbines. The speed variability could be controlled by clutches and/or baffling systems.

The challenges inherent with trying to use and charge a battery at the same time could be overcome by dividing the battery into three segments, or three smaller batteries. Then one could be charging, one could be cooling, and one could be in use. As the battery in use becomes depleted, the system could change over to the cool charged battery and allow that battery previously in use to begin cooling, so it will be ready for its charging then cooling cycle. You're not actually using 100% of the battery at any given moment anyway.

In the case of boats you could even capture churn created by the boat to use as your power source if you decided to go the hydro route versus the wind route. Perhaps just mount something like a Volturnos vpod generator to the hull, or mounting a tube to the bottom to place turbines within.

Side note: Speaking of hydro and batteries, why can't you use an enclosed system to recapture some of the water used at Lake Mead, for example, and pump it back up to fall back on the turbines?

If you're using an electrical vehicle but you're not charging it through a renewable source, or clean energy source we're not getting the full benefit. Until we can find a way to better utilize the waste created by nuclear power generators I question how green they are. I know they're deadly from the mining process through the meltdown, but the other industries are also lethal to varying degrees.

I believe even if this technology is developed it would be blocked, or bought up and shelved because the major electric energy producers, as well as the carbon-based fuel industries don't want a loss of revenue. Although instead of just fear it and work to oppose or shut it down, they could diversify and be the leading edge of this new technology. Do you hear me coal? Petroleum? Also I do admit I've got some more research to be done as far as who's diversifying into what, but that information is not always as easy to find as I would hope, and some companies are making strides.

(Coal is a dying industry and has been for quite a while, and I'm not just referring to what happens to the workers, or environment around the mines and utilization areas. As far as the workers go they have been automating as much as possible, implementing robots instead of harming people directly (where most of the jobs in coal are really going is to automation.))

If you look into what happened at the local level regarding solar power generation, and the legislation has been implemented to prevent individual homes from using their own solar generated power, without selling it to and buying it back from the local power grid in many places, you might be in for a rude awakening. I worry that the same influences are at play when it comes to perpetually charging electric vehicles.

As always there's more facts to be checked and more research to be done. But I fully and firmly believe that these perpetually charging vehicles are definitely a possibility and have been for a while now. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic since apparently they haven't figured out how to encapsulate the batteries in some sort of Halon sleeve or some other gaseous substance that would automatically extinguish fire, but as for the charging it can happen.

And about an hour ago I had just about finished a perhaps more eloquent version of this blog post when a sudden battery death destroyed it. Sigh. Yeah I should have been saving it as a draft, but Tumblr that's not as convenient as you think it is perhaps a floating save option would be better?

As always please remember to do your homework, to research, to fact check, especially when it comes to politics and even more than you may think at the local level. Granted it can be harder at the local level because there's so much less available publicly about the candidates, but that can be a place for your local press and local news to help provide information to better inform your decisions.

Since a computer failure had me off Facebook for a while, and I found out that I'm a little bit happier without the stream of misinformation, I'm going to post my political sentiments more frequently on this blog. There's a difference between spreading misinformation intentionally, or because you're that misinformed, and politics. (I still think Facebook and other sites would be better off to fact check and watermark posts as false or misleading instead of removing them, or blocking people, that way people can see what doesn't check and think twice about posting it.)

[paulatoo]

Are you falling for all those TV ads aimed at voters?

Their back!!! UGH!   I detest misleading and lying political ads!!!!!! So much so in election years I have to watch the news on delay as much as possible. I have contacted the FTC and FCC more than once in years past to see if they could stop them.  As someone from one of those organizations pointed out years ago: it would take an act of Congress, and since many in Congress rely on the misleading ads to get elected, it's hard to get enough votes against them.

When Congress was working to get misinformation blocked from social media I had hope that we could get it outlawed across the board.  Sadly no luck as of the 2020 election cycle.

Please remember to do your own Fact Check of the 'sources' in the ads.  If you actually follow up on the attribution, you may even see the candidate they are being attributed against, was only quoting the one the ad is for.

Use Google, Bing Yahoo, etc. (I prefer Googles search engine, but the others work too I guess) FactCheck.org, Snopes, Politico, etc. Fact check them too (the good ones provide their source information titles/links).  

Use them(even if just for their sources) & donate if you can.  Read the source information your self, if you find discrepancies contact the author, editor, producer, parent company, party, whoever is responsible for the information & ask them about it, hold them accountable! The more they are held accountable the better job they will do from the start & less work we will have to do watch-dogging them.

Sometimes I see something in source info that is actually a bigger impending issue than the headline, though it sometimes takes a while to become the lead story.  

Also you don’t really need to click the divisive click bait article/meme, usually you can just Google the topic(side note if you only see minor news sources covering it, it is often less likely to be true, but investigate anyway, It may just not be garnering enough attention for major news to cover it).

Verifying information & holding people accountable is another way we can fight for our country. It isn’t nearly as hard or dangerous as being on the front lines, or serving in the military at all, but can help assist those who are & maybe prevent them from being there based on bad intel. Plus it may lead to a less divided nation, less likely to be conquered.

Politicians work the same way btw, if you want honest, capable, trustworthy representatives, Don’t vote for the lyingist, most criminal, least capable of the lot.

Remember there are people from other nations attempting to manipulate our society ALL the time, not just when it comes to an election year.  I wish there was more discussion on this ongoing, but sadly people seem to get caught up in debating the material they are using, instead of spreading reminders about it possibly being a manipulation. We need to remind ourselves every time we see some emotion inducing post that there may not even be an American behind it.

Yes TV and Radio friends I know you need the ad money, I didn't say they can't advertise, just be honest & don't mislead.  After all our leaders can impact our lives more and longer than a lot of other bad 'purchases'.

Especially in 2020′s fear based campaign of misinformation and lies.

[paulatoo]

No it’s not the same thing!

As I search for sources of misinformation unfortunately I seem to be seeing a lot of it coming from the Republican Congressional representatives in addition to, sadly, President Trump.   Are we really trying to equate the action taken as part of a multinational alliance with one man trying to manipulate a country to do his bidding for his own personal gain and benefit?  Rand Paul, that is certainly not the only disappointing thing I've ever heard out of your mouth, but it's actually a new low in my book.  With proven (by a bipartisan yet highly Republican Congressional investigation)election interference, and societal interference/division campaigns being taken on by foreign nations against the United States and other countries, isn't it time to be educating your constituents with the truth?  

When parties are more preoccupied with talking points and misleading their constituency than the truth how are we ever to unite the United States again?

Now, before the public impeachment hearings begin:  I certainly hope this time around I will only see questions asked that allow for time to answer them.  I'm really tired of watching hearings on a variety of subjects and seeing Congressional representatives and senators show up to basically testiquestion witnesses by writing five minute questions to take up their entire time with a witness that do not allow for time for the witness to reply.  They're there to get that soundbite or video clip for the evening news, without actually taking any actions to contribute to the hearings in any useful way.

Americans, we need to demand better!  I understand your Congressional representatives and senators may have gotten harder to actually get through to via their phone email and social media in the last couple of years, but it's still worth a try to reach out to them and let them know but you demand better.  

If they don't respond with better there's always the ballot box. Unless of course we’re already being run by Russia(based on President Trump thanking Russia more than double the times he thanked our troops at the beginning of the Al Baghdadi termination, I am wondering more again).

[paulatoo]

No matter the Party, Source or Publication: Always Fact Check!

It’s great to have news sources you can rely on to provide honest accurate unbiased news, but I fact check them anyway.  When you read that click bait tile or meme & start emotionally reacting start investigating.  It is usually not that hard.

TO THE MEDIA: Please include Bill/Ordinance number & name(s) of who introduced it! I know the number can change as a bill progresses into a law, but if you at least have the introductory bill number, readers can look on the government site for the Local Government/State Legislature / Congress to read it in detail much easier. 

FactCheck.org, Snopes, Politico, etc. Fact check them too.  The good ones provide their source information titles/links.  Use them(even if just for their sources) & donate if you can. I have been thankful for them existing & praying for them since 2015, I knew they’d be busy, but wish they weren’t still this busy.  If only we could wake people who have been steered away from them back to the truth they may not be so busy, praying for those folks daily.

Read source information when possible.  Sometimes I see something in source info that is actually a bigger impending issue than the headline, though it sometimes takes a while to become the lead story.  Also you don’t really need to click the divisive click bait article/meme, usually you can just Google the topic(side note if you only see minor news sources covering it, it is often less likely to be true, but investigate anyway. It may just not be garnering enough attention for major news to cover it).

Now about the major/minor, liberal/conservative media: There are certain public service stories, governmental actions, safety, security, educational items that you will see regardless, but the stories that are garnering the most attention & reaction are what you will see on the subject.  So if you feel your media source is hiding something because X & Y don’t cover all the same things keep in mind the major established multi partisan sources will go for the stories with the widest appeal.  

Often the newer, smaller news sources will use the ‘what the other(big) guys aren’t telling you’ approach, or worse ‘are hiding from you’ approach to peak your interest. Also until recently to this writing there haven’t been a lot of politicians identifying as liberal in comparison to those identifying as conservative.  What ever you prefer, I am anti anyone being CONned.  

(The whole con/lib thing has gotten so ridiculous I am seeing 2 conservative candidate’s PACs advertising the other candidate as liberal.  We need to know & do better.)

If I never get to say or post anything else Please remember to do your own Fact Check, read the source information your self, if you find discrepancies contact the author, editor, producer, parent company, party, whoever is responsible for the information & ask them about it, hold them accountable! The more they are held accountable the better job they will do from the start & less work we will have to do watch-dogging them.

Politicians work the same way btw, if you want honest, capable, trustworthy representatives, Don’t vote for the lyingist, most criminal, least capable of the lot.  I am still & will remain an Unaffiliated centrist in order to be able to do so.  If your local elections do not allow for unaffiliated candidates & voters work to change that.

Also reading the version of the Senate Investigation report on Russian Interference in the U.S. 2016 election & beyond that has the meme & fake pages pictured may help you better sniff out manipulation from actual American posts.  https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/social-media-advertisements.htm (note the site will download them as .zip files) Here is an overview that links to the site: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/?utm_term=.9354cb51e1e1

Verifying information & holding people accountable is another way we can fight for our country. It isn’t nearly as hard or dangerous as being on the front lines, or serving in the military at all, but can help assist those who are & maybe prevent them from being there based on bad intel. Plus it may lead to a less divided nation, less likely to be conquered.

Originally posted 7/6/19 be prepared to see it as my top post going forward, of all the ideas & opinions I have this is the most enduringly important one.

[paulatoo]

Mueller Report Vol. 1 Pgs. 116-199 notes

P127"Hope to take a rain check for another time when things quiet down a bit. Please pass along my regards to the Ambassador."819" Gordon Looks like Obama isn't the only one too busy for a meeting during a campaign, granted he was already a fully briefed 2nd term president by then.

P128"Landrum recalled that Kislyak referred to the presidential campaign as "an interesting campaign,"829 and Sessions also recalled Kislyak saying that the Russian government was receptive to the overtures Trump had laid out during his campaign.830""830 Sessions 1/17/18 302, at 23. Sessions also noted that ambassadors came to him for information about Trump and hoped he would pass along information to Trump. Sessions 1/17118 302, at 23-24."

P129"According to Sessions, the request came through CNI and would have involved a meeting between Sessions and Kislyak, two other ambassadors, and the Governor of Alabama. 836" Interesting I wonder why the Gov?

P130"Manafort []did not see a downside to sharing campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be "good for business" and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in the Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a "disagreement"-a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort' s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort' s sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts." So using or in this case possibly selling, insider information is OK???? Knowing what we now have proven about interference this isn't considered something of value to be traded to Russia as a progress report?

P131 i. Oleg Deripaska Consulting Work  -Might make for an interesting series on tv, Does make me very uncomfortable to have him involved in an American campaign

P135"According to Gates, in March 2016, Manafort traveled to Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to meet with Trump. Trump hired him at that time.877 Manafort agreed to work on the Campaign without pay. Manafort had no meaningful income at this point in time, but resuscitating his domestic political campaign career could be financially beneficial in the future. Gates reported that Manafort intended, if Trump won the Presidency, to remain outside the Administration and monetize his relationship with the Administration. 878"Um Wow was he living on campaign expense account?

Just all of P135/136 and when did everyone involved know about all this???? Manafort is using his position on the campaign to get out of legal trouble in Ukraine & get money from there.

PG 143 Maybe really important to have at least high level Congressional read in

P147 footnote 989 Proffer protection all around it seems. While an atty. may recommend, innocent people don't usually need one.  2. Kirill Dmitriev's Transition-Era Outreach to the Incoming Administration Why the Seychelles?

P149 ""Putin has won."" important to help people understand the world view of this & part of why it is going to cost us in the future, especially if no impeachment.  I am not fond of impeaching on a weak case, but after exit charges or spin needs to kick in or something to show it was all not unpunished.

pg 154 Prince trying to direct Russia to move away from Lybia implying hhe had directions from transition team then saying he was not acting in an official capacity in court. RU & UAE in Sceychells did he meet w/UAE too?

P156"The conflicting accounts provided by Bannon and Prince could not be independently clarified by reviewing their communications, because neither one was able to produce any of the messages they exchanged in the time period surrounding the Seychelles meeting. Prince's phone contained no text messages prior to March 2017, though provider records indicate that he and Bannon exchanged dozens of messages.1094 Prince denied deleting any messages but claimed he did not know why there were no messages on his device before March 2017.1095 Bannon's devices similarly contained no messages in the relevant time period, and Bannon also stated he did not know why messages did not appear on his device.1096 Bannon told the Office that, during both the months before and after the Seychelles meeting, he regularly used his personal Blackberry and personal email for work-related communications (including those with Prince), and he took no steps to preserve these work communications.1097" Pretty sure they were deleted asap in real time,if you are travelling out of country for secret meetings you will probably delete messages.

After all that as been said about all the investigations & hearings on Hillary's personal server & emails Bannon admits to using is personal Blackberry &  email for official business regularly. Oh and there's missing texts/emails too. (might have just rolled off?)

P158 The 2 page proposal Sounds good but why all the work on promoting Trump if it was for real? Could have done that with any other admin.

PG 157 Dmitriev tasked be Putin to develop & execute reconciliation plan with US

Pg 158 interesting plan, but aren't key people usually called Ambassador's? Plus Putin's rush & back channel request(159)

PG 160 Setting up te back channel?

Pg 161 Kushner trades Kislyak for GorKov?(But Flynn didn't 167) Kushner foreign loans too VEB Lying about meeting in 2017? Kushner Google lie

Pg 164 Simes Concern Trump's business connections exploitable by Russia (Yet doesn't go back far enough)

Israel resolution Flynn

Pg 168 Obama doing noting about Russian interference in the election except opening investigation (mentions to be cautious about foreign interference late summer/fall 2016, speaking out against post election,  EO13757...)

Flynn channel

Pg 171 DJT asks if Russia intended to influence the election & was informed they did, but he weirdly says it probably wasn't them.  Doesn't stop Flynn call with Kysliak

PG 173 Bannon denies he talked to Flynn about sanctions. Investigation concludes there is a lot of evidence of attempts to coordinate(collude) by Russia some [invited by or] embraced by the Trump campaign, others rejected, but no strong(court room strong) evidence the Campaign conspired with Russia to influence the election.

And DJT just did it again after seeing internal poll numbers he didn't like, think about it.  Of course e will say it's nothing it was a joke, etc.  Stir up a comment/circus of the day smoke screen so you lose sight of it. end of Vol 1 evidence portion 9:22pm 6/17/19

Pgs 173-199 Legally why they could only charge who they did, despite what you can see, limitation of power, scope, other actions. Crash course in prosecution law.

[paulatoo]

Pro Life? Pro Rape? Pro Incest?

In this haste to outlaw abortion and criminalize it, I'm not even sure that they realize excluding rape and incest is validating rape and incest.  There are so many reasons for rape and incest to be primary reasons for abortions, everything from passing along genetic coding of rapist, thereby potentially creating more people prone to rape, to the mothers demeanor while pregnant influencing the health and mental health of the child she carries.

People who believe that abortion should not be legal in the cases of rape and incest need to get a clue, or perhaps suffer the same until they do? Since quite a few of these seem to be men, I guess the nearest we could come in giving them an empathy inducing experience would be for them to be raped and thrown in jail for up to 9 months?  Though that wouldn’t be the same as having a constant reminder actually inside their body. So maybe a daily reminder that they are there because they were raped should be included. Then they could be told to get over it too.  That is another message these headlines seem to carry.

Those who are making laws to exclude these reasons would even be guiltier than most victims of rape and incest.  But then they’re probably operating from this mental image of a happy healthy white baby popping out as a result of the rape or the incest as much as those begging them to make these laws seem to, instead of using their position as lawmakers to learn more about the subject they are legislating.  One of the worst trends I seem to see in legislature these days is the lack of homework being done before laws are made. 

So blind in their quest to pass legislation to protect life (Unless you are Living outside the womb & broken, or broke, or far from job opportunities, or female) they are sending a signal that weakens the taboo and the reinforcing of anti rape & anti incest laws that were reinforced in abortion legislation allowing termination due to rape & incest. I truly pray at least they haven’t taken away a Plan B option for those who are able to get to a medical facility to access it.

Have they ever stop to think we might have a less aggressive, more peaceful law-abiding society, if it weren't for all the raping and pillaging passing along other's damage genetic codes in centuries past?

This post is based on many years of learning. I will post links to sources that back up my statements later. 

Until then I will continue to pray for all people but pray even harder for girls & women to be safe.

{In my emotion I didn’t even think about the rapist then having parental rights, do those convey if these pregnancies result in a viable birth? Will the female now be forced to marry her abuser or rapist??? why force the birth of a child of incest when marrying close family is already against the law due to the birth defect rate that arises??? #Godhelpusplease} 

[paulatoo]

She’s Back, I’m watching on a 15 minute delay until the election.

I am going to be completely honest I do not look forward to broaching the subject at all.  Due to the fact that this morbid taboo is unfortunately sometimes necessary and definitely going to be an even hotter topic than usual all of the upcoming elections I'm going to put out my thoughts and my information on the subject.  

This post is brought to you in large part by the John Perry for congress campaign and the pro-life pack and all the misleading information I am seeing posted about infanticide.  I don’t consider myself anti-life or pro death, but I am pro truth.

On this topic, as well as all the rest, I think the best thing to do when you see that and incendiary or clickbait headline is to do the research. The magic of the internet allows us to visit State websites to read the laws for ourselves these days.

I would also like to say that as a younger person my position on the subject of becoming impregnated, despite taking precautions, was that you would carry the baby anyway.  Life experience has taught me that maybe that is not the best idea.  I personally have not had an abortion, but I do have great compassion for those who have had to either make that choice, or had a spontaneous abortion also known as a miscarriage.

I think that there are medically necessary abortions and it should be legal for a doctor, in a sterile setting, to perform them when needed.  I do not think that anyone who is the victim of incest or any other form of rape should be forced to carry a baby to term.  

Although I do believe in father's rights, perhaps when men start carrying the children in their own bodies they should have a vote on the subject, perhaps until then they should only have a half vote.  The only thing in the realm of reproductive rights that I think would maybe even cause men to comprehend what it's like to have someone tell you what you can or cannot do with your body, would include outlawing pills such as Viagra, penile implants, etc.

I have previously stated at other times that I think the Republican pain-capable abortion bill is it acceptable compromise.  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (also colloquially known as Micah's Law) HB36 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/36

Some Pro-lifers seemed to think everyone who ever becomes pregnant should have to carry a baby.  Further some of those pro-lifers think that you should have to carry a baby regardless of your economic, health, addiction, mental health, circumstances of conception.  And that every fetus becomes a healthy viable baby.

Then want to deprive the child of reasonable care because somehow despite the fact they believe everyone should have these babies they don't believe in welfare to support them. I have always found that kind of confusing.

I have also found it confusing when people are anti-abortion to the point that a nonviable fetus, who is endangering the life of its mother, would be chosen over the life of the mother (even when she was the mother to other children, or could become the mother to other children in the future.)

Then there's one of their favorite arguments against pro-choice laws: that people could just easily go get an abortion because they were irresponsible. First of all I think that's an oversimplification of the situation.  Secondly though, do we want people who could just go and have an abortion without a second thought having children?  Do we want people who do not want to be pregnant carrying children when they're not likely to take care of their bodies or the unborn child?

Then there's the other situation we're men who don't want to be Father's beat their pregnant girlfriend's and wives into an abortion.  That's it illegal too, but unfortunately it happens even with legalized abortion.

Being pro-life is not just a Christian thing by the way, Muslims and Jews and many other religions are also pro-life.  I will admit though when a lot of the anti-abortion items were written into religious doctrine there was not a sanitary environment safely perform abortions.  That's a situation we find ourselves back in at times where abortions are not available legally in a medical facility.

I believe there are a lot of abortion-related misconceptions that our politicians could do a better job of educating us all on.  The majority of the pro-life crowd seems to think that all children conceived, carried and born are going to be happy, healthy, bouncing babies. Sadly some of them even seem to think they're all going to be little white babies. Or born into having a good life and be a good person.

The pro-life side can take solace in the fact that at least the people from Central America and Mexico seeking asylum in the United States are Christians, and most of them are Catholic, and that is a religious faction that strongly opposes both birth control and abortion.  But I'm pretty sure you can find people on your own social media feeds who are posting both proclaiming that we need to build the wall, if not kill the Invaders, and claiming to be pro-life. That makes my brain hurt.

I think my stance is primarily pro-choice, with the hope that no one would ever have to make that choice, but if they did I would like for them to have safe legal medical abortions available.

   The biggest question these days seems to be for how long the fetus would be able to develop into an infant.  Technically life does begin at conception, but it's not viable life.  Whatever point in development is decided upon to be the cutoff for an abortion, that is not medically necessary to save the life of the mother, practicality would dictate that it should be at least long enough for the woman to realize that she is pregnant, but before the child would be viable outside of the womb.

Recently though the big debate has been springing up around what’s being called infanticide.  I had seen some misinformation CBN has posted regarding the New York S240 abortion law changes that they cast in the light that a mother could choose, after birth of a healthy child, whether or not to keep the child alive.  I was so incensed by that that I went and did some research and I found that's not what the law says.  https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240 Since then Factcheck.org  as also addressed it https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addressing-new-yorks-new-abortion-law/

I have been tortured by and possibly mentally damaged by the incessant campaign ads I've Seen at least 10 times a day courtesy of the Dr. Joan Perry for Congress funded by pro-life PACs campaign.  Unfortunately I found out recently that I must brace myself for round two of those ads.  I have reached out to her campaign here is a copy of my post: Posted on Joan Perry for Congress 5/6/19  Well first allow me to congratulate you on your success. Secondly though will any future ad campaigns that include references to infanticide include any educational information such as: Are these happy healthy viable children? Or are they damaged & therefore required to suffer until they die on their own? How long would they be required to suffer? I do know the CDC study "Mortality Records with Mention of International Classification of Diseases-10 code P96.4...."cited approximately 4 infant deaths nationwide, per year, that were not indicated as due to maternal complication or congenital defect, but the other avg. 8 per year were. As a Dr. & Congressional candidate can you access additional information & educate us on the condition of the infants & their viability? As much as I detest the subject it is best to be informed & God knows I was exposed to TV ads about it at least 10 times a day for about a month so I am hoping you can educate myself & others more thoroughly on the condition of the infants in these cases. 

I posted a very similarly worded question to her leading opponent.  

Then Greg Murphy 5/11/19  Glad my vote helped you, just wish it put you over 30% though. There is an education related question I have for you similar to what was already asked of Dr. Perry:  Will you be able to use your position as a Dr. to help educate your constituents on health related upcoming bills disclosing the known facts on the matter?                                                                           'Will any future ad campaigns that include references to infanticide include any educational information such as: Are these happy healthy viable children? Or are they damaged & therefore required to suffer until they die on their own? How long would they be required to suffer? I do know the CDC study "Mortality Records with Mention of International Classification of Diseases-10 code P96.4...."cited approximately 4 infant deaths nationwide, per year, that were not indicated as due to maternal complication or congenital defect, but the other avg. 8 per year were. As a Dr. & Congressional candidate can you access additional information & educate us on the condition of the infants & their viability? As much as I detest the subject it is best to be informed & God knows I was exposed to TV ads about it at least 10 times a day for about a month so I am hoping you can educate myself & others more thoroughly on the condition of the infants in these cases.'

I have been pleasantly surprised that I've not been attacked and maligned, at least not to my face, for asking if people with better access to information on these topics are planning to educate their voters about these subjects, and other health related topics, with facts that they have better access to as doctors so that we can make better decisions.

CDC study  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_policy/mortality-records-mentioning-termination-of-pregnancy.htm

The term botched abortion does not necessarily indicate to me that the child would be unscathed from the attempted abortion. I am at least trying to find out more information on that from these medical professionals.  

I was able to find some information on the North Carolina born alive bill https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article229400234.html.  I don't think it was necessary to be written or past, because there are already laws in place to protect children and require that they receive medical attention once born and before.   Politicians can continue to debate that law though. I'm pretty sure it was basically just a tug of war bill so that either side could show that they had done something on the topic to the voters.  

On this topic, as well as all the rest, I think the best thing to do when you see that and incendiary or clickbait headline is to do the research. The magic of the internet allows us to visit State websites to read the laws for ourselves these days.

If you want to debate me on the pros and cons of praying pro-life or pro-choice I would caution you that I am not especially anti-life or anti-choice.  You will however need to be prepared to answer at what point between conception and natural death your support for life ends, why life matters more than quality of life, why you don't believe God will assign that soul to another body, etc. and be prepared to wait a really long time for an answer because I've got a lot of other things to do.

[paulatoo]

Concerned by the preludes to war with Iran again.

Although I am so saddened for the loss of the 603, I am concerned & praying we don’t wind up losing more, ever, or more American civilians, or any good people really.

 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/04/04/iran-killed-more-us-troops-in-iraq-than-previously-known-pentagon-says/

[paulatoo]

Some insight from the more educated on the matter.  

Iran regime change, 1986 to the present. Not much change

In the article below, Politico describes the advice being given to President Trump on Iran by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD); the following passage appears:     http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930         Trump allies push White House to consider regime change in Tehran    … .       The case for political subversion in Iran has also been pressed to the    White House by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a hawkish    Washington think tank that strenuously opposed Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal    with Tehran and which has close ties to many key Trump officials.        Soon after Trump’s inauguration, FDD’s CEO, Mark Dubowitz, submitted a    seven-page Iran policy memo to Trump’s National Security Council. The    memo — which was circulated inside the Trump White House and recently    obtained by POLITICO — included a discussion of ways to foment popular    unrest with the goal of establishing a “free and democratic”  Iran.        “Iran is susceptible to a strategy of coerced  democratization because it    lacks popular support and relies on fear to sustain its power,” the memo    argued. “The very structure of the regime invites instability, crisis    and possibly collapse.”        I thought the phrase “coerced democratization,” which is essentially a contradiction in terms, sounded familiar. After a bit of searching, I found this:        In a Top Secret memo [now declassified] from national security adviser John Poindexter to President Reagan on January 17, 1986, he described the rationale  for selling arms to Iran, in concert with Israel. This later came to be called the Iran-contra affair. Poindexter wrote:        “The Israelis are convinced that the Iranians are so desperate for military materiel, expertise and intelligence that the provision of these resources will result in favorable long term changes in personnel and attitudes within the Iranian government. Further, once the exchange relationship has commenced, a  dependency would be established on those who are providing the requisite resources, thus allowing the provider(s) to coercively influence near-term results.”        It was the coercive element in the last line that stuck in my mind.    Although the circumstances are different, Poindexter thought that    positive inducements (arms) would put the US in a position to    exercise coercive influence over developments in Iran. Mark Dubowitz    argues that negative inducements (threats and sanctions) will put    the US in a position to exercise coercive influence    (democratization?) in Iran. It is not a new idea.        The idea of coercing a nation of the size and sophistication of Iran to do your bidding has never had any serious validity. (Just look at the the problems Saudi Arabia is having with tiny Qatar.) But the idea is alive and well and being peddled today to the White House by American proponents of regime change in very much the same form as thirty years ago.    

[paulatoo]

To impeach or not to impeach has taken center stage... for a minute anyway.

Now that the Mueller report is out the question of to impeach or not to impeach has taken center stage.  Sadly even before the time that President Trump took office there was a ruling that lying politicians are allowed to because campaign rhetoric, for some reason, doesn't carry the same weight as a lie in any other situation.  To some extent there's a benefit to that for any otherwise honest candidates who get into office and find themselves unable to fulfill campaign promises.

However, in a situation where you have individual chronically, habitually and intentionally disseminating false information, especially when they are using the Office of the President of the United States as their platform, we need to have an option for removal.  For those reasons I think the Republican Party should have moved to remove him at most three months into his presidency.

The Mueller report is detailing a lot of the ways Russia has attempt to interfere with our elections, actual areas of interference, covering some of the interactions between Donald J Trump and Russia that predate his candidacy,  and his obstruction of/attempts to obstruct the investigation in to those things, impeachment is a buzzword.

I'd like to look at these options even though I'm more strongly in favor of removing him from office via the 25th Amendment and think that that is long overdue as well.

First question: Is there enough evidence to impeach successfully?  Although we do not have option to view the unredacted information in the Mueller report, that may contain information that could verify a successful impeachment, is there enough evidence to bring a strong enough case to actually successfully impeach Trump?

To remind you Despite what Donald says, there is a lot of evidence in the Mueller report, he definitely repeatedly at least attempts to obstruct justice or ordered an obstructionary act.  Fortunately for him now, the people who President Trump told or ordered to obstruct the investigation, or fire someone, or otherwise stop, silence, etc. didn't listen to him.  His reaction to that has been to trash those individuals all over the place on Twitter and in the press, when he should be thanking them so that takes us back to the 25th Amendment.  Then there is Trump & Putin referring to all of this as a ‘mouse’. 

If they attempt to impeach Trump and fail( primarily due to the overly Republican Senate having and cashed in the security of the country in favor of maintaining a unified front, regardless of the fact that's a President could potentially be working on behalf of Russia, or even another foreign national to bring down the country. It's not like we're seeing the 1990s Lindsey Graham trying to hold Bill Clinton accountable, sadly he's gone the opposite direction this time, quoting misleading statements. Do they have him too? Btw I was not Bill Clinton’s biggest fan back then either) would that preclude him being charged once the protections of the office of a sitting President are removed?  Reportedly no, even post successful impeachment, he could still be charged, but post impeachment the court would most likely go easier on him since he already had penalties placed on him by virtue of the impeachment.

At this point it is my understanding that the Trump 2020 campaign could be run under the slogan: ‘Please vote for me, I don't want to go to jail’. Will he be charged when leaving office if he's not impeached or removed under the 25th amendment? We will have to wait and see. http://time.com/5123598/president-trump-impeach-criminal-constitution/

What will the tear in the societal fabric be when unfortunately, despite the evidence in both the congressional election interference investigations and Mueller report, many Republicans still don't understand what has been happening with Donald Trump and Russia. The stuff he keeps claiming is a hoax (when there's definitely, proven times over, been interference and interference attempts by Russia and other countries in our electoral process and in our society as a whole.) Information that the Senate Investigative Committee publish in 2018 (The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) July 3, 2018 https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf ) (Remember they also released information on many of the false Facebook pages & ads as well as other social media accounts involved.) The things Trump has still been dismissive about if not straight up denying.  More of Trump & Putin’s ‘mouse’.

What will the cost of not acting be?  The lack of action on the part of the Republican majority and super-majority has already made it acceptable for another highly contradictory, pathological liar to behave in the ways that Donald Trump has behaved in office going forward. God knows Nixon must be on full spin rotation in his grave during this Presidency. I am not sure we can afford this Presidency let alone this precedent.

If no action is taken will the message going forward be that it's okay to at least strongly attempt to obstruct Justice? Will being charged, and possibly landing in prison, after leaving office be enough of a deterrent to prevent future presidents from obstructing justice?

As I said earlier I think the Republican party should have removed him from office very shortly after he took office for all the other things he does wrong.  The whole of the country should remove him from office, invoking the 25th Amendment because of the things he does and says, and the way he behaves so very inconsistently and untruthfully.  Not long ago he was claiming his own father, born in New York City, was actually born in Germany.  Prior to his campaign he was claiming President Obama was not a United States citizen.  

There are lines that can be drawn to separate the difference of a misstatement, or something that turns out not to be true(singular event, or very infrequent event done without the intent to fool or defraud) from a fraud, and intentionally, pathologically misstating information and flat out lying, as well as the crazy statements he makes to prevent abuse of this precedent in the future.

As badly as I want this incompetent, divisive, liar out of office, even I am weary of the continual hearings. If you don’t know me I am sure it is hard to read this & believe I am nonpartisan, but it’s not about Rep vs. Dem or Ind or any of the other 20+ political parties.  It is about behavior & protecting my country.  All I can do is assure you that I would react the same way to anyone from any party behaving this way.

Again, I was not Bill Clinton’s biggest fan back then either. The Republican Party has lost me at least the Democrats have done a better job of consistently presenting factual information this century to date. Hopefully when DJT is done breaking the Republicans they can choose truth over spin, and we will all have more honest trustworthy politicians until we  https://paulatoo.tumblr.com/post/176167819317/tired-of-congress-not-getting-things-done-not  anyway. 

I think it’s beyond time that Republican members of Congress start using facts to educate their party and American’s in general, but most of them are acting like a Democrat will replace an impeached Trump instead of Pence, that’s concerning on it’s own.

We didn’t start the fire, but we need to put it out!  What other choice do we have to preserve our legal & behavioral standards for the office of the president, or any office really? I am already very concerned about what we are going to do when another Donald Trump type candidate, without the 30 years of public red flags, comes along.  If people could be so fooled by this one how will we ever avoid another less obvious one?

Some resources for the honest politicians & honest ads movement

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/great-leaders-may-lie-but-great-liars-dont-lead-2016-07-06

I think between partyist political spin machines & multination interference via social media inroads manipulating opinions https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/when-lying-demagogue-authentic-candidate Lying ads https://www.natcom.org/communication-currents/political-speech-protection-and-supreme-court-united-states Sword cuts both ways http://www.klrn.org/blogs/texas-week/this-isnt-first-time-a-judges-ruling-considered-political-rhetoric/ “Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of employment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. See, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 771 (noting that fraudulent speech generally falls outside the protections of the First Amendment)” &” But to recite the Government’s compelling interests is not to end the matter. The First Amendment requires that the Government’s chosen restriction on the speech at issue be “actually necessary” to achieve its interest. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at12). There must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. See ibid.” Justice Kennedy, UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf  I think the last few years prove we are closer to establishing a link to demolish lies told from being protected as political rhetoric, hopefully anyway.  In an environment where so much spin & misinformation is allowed to grow & spread too many people seem unable to discern truth from lies at the expense of all of us. 

Please note that I rabbit holed my way into that First Amendment information by, instead of just emotionally reacting to the headlines(in this case a synopsis I found inflaming):” The Court held that the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about having received military honors or decorations, violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.” https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/supreme-court-cases/ I read on to discover it wasn’t pro imitator as much as anti-poorly written law.  Researching past click bait headlines is part of our best defense against manipulation and poor decision making.  One thing we can thank the Trump campaign above others for is pointing out how misinformed how many people are, even in the information age.  I pray we learn from that soon, but sadly still see people sharing opinions, articles & videos with headlines they support, but content they may not agree with.

[paulatoo]

Medicare for all?

There is a way medicare-for-all can work without putting private insurance companies, or Doctors, out of business or  even costing us exorbitant amounts of money. Are any proponents of medicare-for-all there yet? Not that I have seen.

Things to know before you read this: Medicare & Medicaid, although administered by the federal government, much of the claims processing & customer service is actually handled by private insurance & private customer service companies awarded contracts through bids.  There are multiple Medicare for all plans being floated. SOME of my thoughts on this evolving option are below.  The work from law makers as well as groups like Haven to lower costs working both with independently of the government is also an important part of our healthcare situation improving.  

However, if we slightly increase the amount of what Medicare withholding currently is, charge premiums on an income-based scale, continue to bid out claims processing contract to private insurance companies, and allow private insurance companies to also sell policies above and beyond Medicare A, B & D coverage, it should be doable at least a current rates. Or most likely less than is currently being paid for premiums. Private insurance companies already sell above & beyond policies in the form of Medicare part C & supplemental policies.

Working on Medicare for all is far less scary to the insurance industry than repeal-and-replace was.  I actually sometimes wonder if Congressional Republicans get paid every time they say "Repeal-and-replace" because God knows the people end up paying for it.

Lawmakers & candidates talking about “Repeal and replace”, combined with Congress screwing around about coming up with a replacement plan, actually cost American health insurance buyers in the form of higher premiums.  Lifting te individual mandate is going to cause another bump since there will be less money coming into the pool as people drop coverage.     

However, when you start talking about modifying programs that insurance company is familiar with, and that has facts and figures in existence, they are less afraid of what they could end up needing to cover and for who.

The Affordable Care Act provided the insurance industry, as well as the government, with a better index of the health status of Americans to base the cost on.  I believe part of went wrong with the ACA was the insurance companies demanded too much input to ‘keep the cost down’ then came back with inputs that were inflated but included and raised the cost.  Plus the primary provider in any areas down to single care provider for health insurance tends to be the same provider, sometimes under a different name, that it was prior to the Affordable Care Act.  A lot of that is on the people that live there though, but to some extent the pre-existing big dog in town company did make it harder for any newcomers to compete. Ultimately though, people were choosing companies that were a familiar name and striving to buy care they had long wished for.

For example in North Carolina Blue Cross and Blue Shield(BCBS) has been the state insurance provider, the teachers insurance provider, insurance provider for  a lot of corporations. Therefor those policies are the ones that people had it in their heads that they want it.  Those policies are the ones that were on their wish list for a long time before the ACA. Then a few years into implementation other companies were dropping out due to sluggish sales.  You may be familiar with this syndrome occurring nationwide especially in rural areas lamented as ACA failing.

In some states the existing primary major insurer change their name or two large insurers combined to create a new entity.  Same people different name also being called a failure, or case where people couldn’t keep their insurance company.  Those were corporate decisions though not legislated ones.

The ACA, or Obamacare if you prefer, is repairable.   We could move forward into exploring Medicare for all as a replacement.  However, people on both sides of the aisle are dropping the ball, in my opinion, when they're not pointing out that Medicare already sub contracts out the majority of its claims work to private insurance companies.  There is no need to put all private insurance companies out of business.  A government takeover of health insurance would most likely involve continuing to contract out the work to private companies.  If we're going to hire federal workers to do all of the claims processing and support services again we will not be able to afford it.  Currently the private companies that handle insurance for Medicare and Medicaid often subcontract out parts of their work.  Doing this allows them to handle the contracts profitably, but it also allows them to pay less in wages.  Subcontractors employees or some sub subcontractors are often are only paid wages in the neighborhood of $10 an hour with no traditional benefits.  

Back to the basics of the proposal though, because this is going to be an over-simplification either way.  I have bookmarked some legislation proposing Medicare for all but as yet have not been able to completely read it.  When you start getting into the more detailed plan questions arise.  For example in the billhttps://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7339/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22spending%22%5D%7D&r=34&s=2&fbclid=IwAR1P6AQUZzNJvETxac1ChDFAQLgvyn2jn8c9F0DGAqXgZIXx0rhZbzH9_Io   That I had started reading I ran into question about the sugar tax %.  Well we are all familiar with the tobacco tax, sugar in addition to increasing obesity does have detrimental effect on the body when taken in large quantities.  Trying to regulate it through a tax that seemed excessively high in my opinion it's going to prove to be a bit of a challenge.  Considering consumption rates they should expand the definition to include all sweeteners and lower the amount of tax they were proposing if they would like to go move forward with this at all.  Especially with the increasing number of studies showing no calorie sweeteners confuse the body & may cause increased weight gain.

Basically though if you avoid increasing Medicare tax too much. use the income-based/ sliding premium cost scale at an appropriate level that is still affordable(hopefully less than what ACA / Obamacare insurance has been costing us) only the availability of quality affordable coverage will change.  There is an added benefit of an increasing level of coverage to include all Americans: that will gradually decrease the cost of care through illnesses being treated sooner, cancers and other problems being detected sooner.  So how are we going to get everyone covered & keep them that way? 

You may recall COBRA was an overpriced nightmare, about half (most Rep Governor ruled) of the states refused to accept expanded Medicaid when the feds were paying for fear of mostly financial repercussions when the funding was cut after federal payments ended. The individual mandate was considered too expensive and unfair(but no one seems to be able to explain why we are forced to buy other forms of insurance & they are ‘ok’, not that I want people running around without let’s say... car insurance, but think about the hypocrisy). So how to get over that hurdle happily??? 

[paulatoo]

The First 115 pages

Random notes & questions on Vol 1 Mueller Report tat may not make much sense to you, but have at it:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0eZpjUMbZgX_LfwYf5Rgo5YV64zGfXwEs1XzrlB0wPxid9B-mkXyZdycw  

or if it’s easier

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html?module=inline

pg 1-12 rundown & indications of guilt Pg 13 redundancy of investigators precludes an partyism controlling out come.  To ally fears of a Dem persecution & who's to say Reps weren't losing evidence?

Pg 23 Sanders also favored why?

Pg42 foot note "Tennessee-based web-hosting company, called Smartech Corporation. William Bastone, RNC E-Mail Was, In Fact, Hacked By Russians, The Smoking Gun (Dec. 13, 2016)."

Pg44-46 Why does everyone think Hillary interested in starting wars???Even worse why do people that attack Her thinking she is prone to war then cheer Trump with all his hateful rhetoric & threats?  She has worked to help end wars & avoid conflicts, to protect first responders & police esp., veterans...is it her standing strong to prove a woman can...or fear of a woman in power? In Putin’s case maybe he just knew he wouldn’t get his way wit her.

Pg44 foot note 156 Is this just related to Crimea & Ukraine?

Pg48 Seth Rich wikileaks scapegoat death?

Meanwhile: "On July 27 2016, Unit 26165 targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton's personal office . Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that included the following: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."183 The "30,000 emails" were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State. Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office." is going un noticed & explained away.  Not the strongest point,  but still concerning. There was already contact with the Trump campaign that DJT knew about the info they claimed to have, could be dismissed as innocent/bad timing with out that, since so much prior Russian related activity is being held apart from this investigation. pg49

Pg50 The GRU stole approximately 300 gigabytes of data from the DNC cloudbased account.185 Ref. 9/20/16 post Trump remarks Original hack 4/11/16 Pg40 https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails/index.html https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary%20R.%20Clinton%20Part%2001%20of%2031

Pg 50 Local/State "2. Intrusions Targeting the Administration of U.S. Elections In addition to targeting individuals involved in the Clinton Campaign, GRU officers also targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections (SBOEs), secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. 186 The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.187 The GRU continued to target these victims through the elections in November 2016. While the investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity."  See also  Senate investigation & post election reporting that while there was intrusion there was no vote interference due in part to Obama admin action to alert. Obama mention of looking into/we have reports of Russian meddling end of press conference in July??? Wish I could remember the date/topic was aired on NBC.

Pg 51 Florida SBOE or CBOE does nothing??? "We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government. The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so."

Pg 56 so what "We" was going to be in charge?

Pg 59 "Corsi stated that he was convinced that his efforts had caused WikiLeaks to release the emails when they did.246"reaction to Billy Bush tape but after the walk back "The Office investigated Corsi' s allegations about the events of October 7...little corroboration for his alle ations about the da . 248'{as copied highlighted parts dropped, weird}  

Blackmail? Pg59-60 "Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period. On September 20, 2016, an individual named Jason Fishbein sent WikiLeaks the password for an unlaunched website focused on Trump's "unprecedented and dangerous" ties to Russia, PutinTrump.org.252 WikiLeaks publicly tweeted: '"Let's bomb Iraq' Progress for America PAC to launch "PutinTrump.org' at 9:30am. Oops pw is 'putintrump' putintrump.org." Several hours later, WikiLeaks sent a Twitter direct message to Donald Trump Jr., "A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch. The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is 'putintrump.' See 'About' for who is behind it. Any comments ?"253"

Pg 61 False(?) claims on Clinton laundering? "In the spring of 2016, Trump Campaign advisor Michael Caputo learned through a Floridabased Russian business partner that another Florida-based Russian, Henry Oknyansky (who also went by the name Henry Greenberg), claimed to have information pertaining to Hillary Clinton. Caputo notified Roger Stone and brokered communication between Stone and Oknyansky. Oknyansky and Stone set up a May 2016 in-person meeting.260

Oknyansky was accompanied to the meeting by Alexei Rasin, a Ukrainian associate involved in Florida real estate. At the meeting, Rasin offered to sell Stone derogatory information on Clinton that Rasin claimed to have obtained while working for Clinton. Rasin claimed to possess financial statements demonstrating Clinton's involvement in money laundering with Rasin's companies. According to Oknyansky, Stone asked if the amounts in question totaled millions of dollars but was told it was closer to hundreds of thousands. Stone refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition research.261 Oknyansky claimed to the Office that Rasin's motivation was financial. According to Oknyansky, Rasin had tried unsuccessfully to shop the Clinton information around to other interested parties, and Oknyansky would receive a cut if the information was sold.262 Rasin is noted in public source documents as the director and/or registered agent for a number of Florida companies, none of which appears to be connected to Clinton."

Pg 62 Disappeared? "The Office did not locate Rasin in the United States, although the Office confirmed Rasin had been issued a Florida driver's license. The Office otherwise was unable to determine the content and origin of the information he purportedly offered to Stone. Finally, the investigation did not identify evidence of a connection between the outreach or the meeting and Russian interference efforts."

Pg 62-63 search for the truth or treason? wording looks like the latter "Ledeen began her efforts to obtain the Clinton emails before Flynn's request, as early as December 2015.268 On December 3, 2015, she emailed Smith a proposal to obtain the emails, stating, "Here is the proposal I briefly mentioned to you. The person I described to you would be happy to talk with you either in person or over the phone. The person can get the emails which 1. Were classified and 2. Were purloined by our enemies. That would demonstrate what needs to be demonstrated."269

Attached to the email was a 25-page proposal stating that the "Clinton email server was, in all likelihood, breached long ago," and that the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian intelligence services could "re-assemble the server's email content."270 The proposal called for a three-phase approach. The first two phases consisted of open-source analysis. The third phase consisted of checking with certain intelligence sources "that have access through liaison work with various foreign services" to determine if any of those services had gotten to the server. The proposal noted, "Even if a single email was recovered and the providence [sic] of that email was a foreign service, it would be catastrophic to the Clinton campaign[.]" Smith forwarded the email to two colleagues and wrote, "we can discuss to whom it should be referred."271 On December 16, 2015, Smith informed Ledeen that he declined to participate in her "initiative." According to one of Smith's business associates, Smith believed Ledeen's initiative was not viable at that time.272"  

Pg63 KLS Research LLC So who has the emails & when will they be released? During Trump impeachment hearings? Pg64 “According to Prince, the tech advisor determined that the emails were not authentic.283 "

Since Trump has both made statements about becoming President & wanting Trump Tower Moscow since the 1980's I think the scope should have gone back further than 2013-2015. "288 For example, on August 18, 2015, on behalf of the editor-in-chief of the internet newspaper Vzglyad, Georgi Asatryan emailed campaign press secretary Hope Hicks asking for a phone or in-person candidate interview. 8/18/15 Email, Asatryan to Hicks. One day earlier, the publication's founder (and former Russian parliamentarian) Konstantin Rykov had registered two Russian websites-Trump2016.ru and DonaldTrump2016.ru. No interview took place." Footnote Pg66 for example.  Being aware of Trump other dealings makes it hard not to think there may have been some degree of pre coordination earlier, that & all the Russian ties. See also from Pg69 "Sater had also served as an informal agent of the Trump Organization in Moscow previously and had accompanied lvanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. to Moscow in the mid2000s.306"

Pg71"On November 3, 2015, the day after the Trump Organization transmitted the LOI, Sater emailed Cohen suggesting that the Trump Moscow project could be used to increase candidate Trump's chances at being elected, writing: Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process .... Michael, Putin gets on stage with Donald for a ribbon cutting for Trump Moscow, and Donald owns the republican nomination. And possibly beats Hillary and our boy is in .. . . We will manage this process better than anyone. You and I will get Donald and Vladimir on a stage together very shortly. That the game changer.327 Later that day, Sater followed up: Donald doesn't stare down, he negotiates and understands the economic issues and Putin only want to deal with a pragmatic leader, and a successful business man is a good candidate for someone who knows how to negotiate. "Business, politics, whatever it all is the same for someone who knows how to deal" " First part alarming!!!! Boy were they wrong on the second part when it comes to international trade deals.

Pg76 From footnote 359"...Dvoskin is an executive of Genbank, a large bank with lending focused in Crimea, Ukraine. At the time that Sater provided this financing letter to Cohen, Genbank was subject to U.S. government sanctions, see Russia/Ukraine-related Sanctions and Identifications, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Dec. 22, 2015), available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFACEnforcement/Pages/20151222.aspx. Dvoskin, who had been deported from the United States in 2000 for criminal activity, was under indictment in the United States for stock fraud under the aliases Eugene Slusker and Gene Shustar. See United States v. Rizzo, et al., 2:03-cr-63 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2003). " Reasons to do your homework/due diligence.

[paulatoo]

The Wall & Border Security

This is primarily about the border wall for the southern border of the United States with Mexico.

Spending money to complete the fencing and walling off of whatever is remaining among the 1935-50( outside estimate)miles of that border would not do much to deter the actual felonious criminals, gangs or really stop the flow of drugs.  I am aware that there are members of the horrible MS-13 gang from El Salvador already in the United States, I read where some of them in the Maryland area are on trial.(Baltimore Sun read July 1st 2018) perhaps someone could let us know for sure how they got into the United States. Was it through the southern border with Mexico on foot or by car? Or did they fly in? Arrive by boat at any of the other miles of unprotected beaches? Walk down from Canada perhaps? Via El Chapo's submarine or someone else's?

If every inch of that 1935-50 mile Southern border with Mexico was fenced or walled-off sufficiently to be impenetrable by human beings trying to cross illegally, we would still have another approximately 23,000 miles of unprotected borders in the United States. With President Trump's anti diplomatic tactics pissing off our neighbors to the north we may not be able to rely on them for sharing Border Protection duties the way we used to.

There is an answer though, we could send about 200,000(probably far less could do) of our 2 million active service members down to the southern border with Mexico, more than sufficiently cover any gaps, increase patrols on the areas that have already been fenced or walled off, and have a more flexible, responsive around the clock protection in place.

Choosing Military members to protect our Southern border would also afford them a training opportunity, giving them exposure to conditions they might find if deployed and it desert region. We are already paying them anyway having them spend time in the desert regions of the border would give them experience with a lot of issues they could run into with such as: the humidity & temperature climate change, difference in being so far from civilization, so isolated, the little things that no one really tends to think about, out of the way before they would deploy. They could practice ways to say properly hydrated and protected from the sun, the heat, the cold, dealing with the dryer air, the sand blowing, etc. Additionally, they could get real world experience with some things like night vision equipment, radar and other military equipment that they will have been more experienced with for their possible deployment.

We could even test out equipment & techniques to better protect the other 23,000 miles of largely unprotected border. I am not sure if everyone with land bordering the Mexican border were even thoroughly surveyed about what they want(I’m not sure they’ed want people patrolling there either), I am fairly sure everyone with waterfront property didn’t buy it for a view of a fence or wall though. We need to invest in more effective yet invisible border monitoring & protection equipment though. 

In addition to the training on equipment & acclimating they could be practicing interacting peacefully with the ‘enemy’, if knowing they are there isn’t enough of a deterrent. The local economy would most probably also receive at least a minor boost at least. If the training tour became a permanent rotation more than a minor boost.  

Even just completing the desert fencing, most of the border is already fenced outside of Texas, sadly, will most probably just lead to more bodies washing up on beaches like they have been dealing with in Greece. (His concrete wall idea is impractical against mother nature & could cause more environmental issues than even the fence currently in use, or patrols.)

I am also aware that traditionally it's the National Guard, Coast Guard & Homeland Security that protect our borders from within, while our other military members are generally on global protection patrol. However, we could use these as training times and training exercises to strengthen their skills and save some money, while providing compassionate protection for our border at home.

Whatever is to be considered and eventually implemented should at least be thoroughly debated before steps are taken. Plans should be outlined in sufficient detail and we should have start and end dates that could be extended in the future.  That's just good management though, regardless of the task or project at hand.

As both a person & a business person I find people tend to work more productively when they are getting paid, so shutting down the government & leaving our border protection unpaid, seems anti protectionist... not a move someone truly interested in protecting our borders would make. Actions speak louder than words sometimes though, a lot of time with this Trump Administration it seems.

I am also beginning to believe we might need a publicity campaign that dispenses factual information to Americans about immigration, and sadly way too many other things. People spend so much time with so much information so close to them, on the very devices they used to post ignorant or nonfactual, inaccurate items online, they could also search for True Facts from government sources and verify news stories, yet here we are.  

I still can't believe people who are so preoccupied with the U.S.- Mexico border seem to care so little about the rest of our borders. We need more people worried about the country instead of preaching partisan doctrine & dogma, wrongly placing blame. 

(Edited 1/6/19 to include clarification on partial fencing, training on relations & economic points previously made in conversations & posts other places)

[paulatoo]

Tired of Congress not getting things done, not representing you?

This is the draft of an idea I had back in the Mid 1980′s modernized. If I ever find the old paper writings on the subject that wound up in a letter to my representative at the time I will post a pic.

Fire them all!

There is a way to create a more pure democracy, give all Americans more of a voice in government,  thwart the deep state & lobbyists; by getting all of Congress out of office & changing the positions from elected to nonpartisan, hired positions. Like any job they will need to meet educational & experience requirements, hopefully in a variety of businesses and fields of study. Then, after providing as close to all persons(in case of miss-delivery have them available online & at a local easily accessible public location) in the area they represent with surveys, that include a list of explained issues(beyond one line ‘should we increase national debt?’ for example. Instead also include the consequences, pros & cons, etc.).

The staff could tabulate answers & present additional ideas (of their own or submitted) for solutions to the representative & the representative could guide their work using the information obtained. There would also be an opportunity to resurvey as additional issues come up for discussion, pros & cons as well as background information provided.

There would be a paper trail to audit that would ensure the voices of the people were truly being represented (keep in mind though they seem to have lost the petition signed by 60,0000 from mental health professionals calling for at least examination of President Trump so maybe keep a copy for yourself). That way the lobbyists would be thwarted, as well as any supposed 'deep state' pulling strings behind the scenes.

I believe this would free up congress to act in the best long term interest of the country, much like the founding fathers had done.  They would be free of partisan fighting, party in fighting, bribery & other draining, corrupting forces. Then they would be able to better debate a more complete amount of information related to the issue at hand in more of a single issue vote situation, still considering the impact of the single issue in context of the existing related legislation.

[paulatoo]

This cover is so true! Take care of your body for a more enjoyable life, leave something behind that improves the place long term. :)

[paulatoo]

I haven’t changed my mind about the Trump presidency at all, but there are things we agree on...

I am posting this is about a week after most of it was written since I was struggling to find a way to phrase a line that wouldn’t lead to misinterpretation because of a lack of intonation. Hopefully I succeeded, if you feel I failed, please consider I appreciate the members of the military who sacrifice for all our safety. I am just saddened by their losses & treatment afterward.

I would like to applaud President Trump on his handling of the North Korean missile launch, it was nice to see restraint instead of taunting.  It is just sad that I have to praise the response instead of it being status quo.

        I haven’t changed my mind about the Trump presidency at all, but there are things we agree on. The problem comes in in the way issues are being addressed and change is being implemented. Some things I agree with President Trump on:

That we need to keep America safe. Unfortunately his ‘travel ban’ or whatever he’s calling it today did more to endanger us by turning more people against us than anything to help make us safer.  So although I would ordinarily be saddened by people taking to the streets & protesting I do actually thank them for being there showing the world we don’t all agree with the way things are being done. They might be protecting us more than our military at the moment.  No offense intended to the military, but they may also be sparing you some needless loss by showing the world not all Americans back such fear driven, ignorant of the law & processes actions.  It’s not as if people from everywhere are just entering the country at will anymore.  No ban or wall or whatever else we can dream up will protect us from the criminals, sadly they always seem to find a way.  Those things only keep out the good, desperate for a new life people.

America kills people too. Sadly we do & not just the bad guys.  Mistakes happen, cowardly terrorists hide in schools & under hospitals, but beyond that there are unfortunate, devastating accidents & mistakes.  One thing our press does a fairly bad job about is reporting on these incidents, partly because credible information is hard to come by, but partly because we don’t want to hear it.  To many in the Middle East we are terrorists with our drones flying around killing people at all hours. Remember the horrific 9/11 attacks were seen by the attackers as retaliation, not a first strike to instill terror in the hearts of Americans.

We all need to remember that unfortunately terrorism is a mindset that pervades all races, religions, nationalities.  Mass killings are usually born out of a frustration, a sense of retaliation for unfair treatment, or paranoia & misinformation.  Unfairly maligning a certain group in it’s totality for the actions of a few just spreads mistrust & fear & anger.  Especially when they can justifiably say ‘We never did anything to America, Why are we on the list?, Why didn’t they ban travel from the countries who’s people have actually attacked them?’.  

It would be good if America & Russia had a friendlier relationship. Sure it would, but Vladimir Putin doesn’t want that.  Attempts at one have been going on throughout his reign, but he rejects the attempts.  Very recently he was approached about joining up with us & other nations to help eradicate ISI(L/S) and chose not to.  Even in Syria where we both currently have troops fighting, his in support of Asad’s régime, therefore theoretically against ISI(L/S) yet no real cooperation can be seen.  President Putting is not a nice guy, a master strategist & manipulator.  I am very concerned President Trump will wind up getting played by him & we will all pay for it.

Sanctions against Iran are a better idea than a more military action. Although I think if he hadn’t implemented the restrictions so badly they wouldn’t be flexing so hard, something does need to be done.  Thankfully President Obama’s Administration was able to lift many of the sanctions against them in more cooperative times so they are an option again.  By the time we lifted the sanctions we had pretty much run out of things to take away, so it’s good to be in a position to use nonmilitary reprimands.

Our greatest danger at the moment is President Trump’s mouth & administration.  This isn’t coming from a Democrat, it is just a statement of truth from someone who tried to warn people before the election that Donald Trump as president would be a bad idea, hopefully some, if not all, of them are starting to see why.

Thankfully Obama wrote the least number of executive orders in modern times, I’m sure the restraint is killing him, but it looks like Trump might be trying not to exceed his number out of the gate. Now I pray he will get better at thinking them through & implementing them.  Probably hard to do when you are replacing the voices of reason with influencers like Bannon though.

I am trying to see him attacking a show he has production ties to as a publicity stunt, but I’m not entirely sure it’s not just his ego flaring up. 