Delayed is Justice Denied

There can be no doubt the way California is handling the death penalty is not right. Oddly enough, there are few on either side of this issue that would disagree. And once again, there are initiatives presented to the voters to rectify the situation.

What both sides can’t seem to agree on, though, is how to fix a broken system. And yes, there are two sides to this issue.

On one side, we have those people who unfailingly show up to protest any execution. These are the Prop 62 people. Their solution is to simply do away with the death penalty and deny the victims and their loved ones the justice they deserve.

On the other side are those tired of the interminable waiting and constant legal antics and roadblocks for sentences to be carried out and justice to be done. These are the Prop 66 people.

Right up front, I have to say that I whole-heartedly support Prop 66. You can stop reading now if you don’t care to know why.

These days California death row inmates are more likely to die of old age than be executed. Of the 864 prisoners sentenced to die since the California Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1978, 119 died before being executed for their crimes, 71 by natural causes. In the US as a whole, the average length of time an inmate stays on death row has been climbing since a low of 71 months in 1985 to 198 months in 2011. Should it take 16-and-a-half years for victim’s families to see justice done? 

No executions have occurred in California since Clarence Ray Allen’s execution in 2006 – a full 10 years! Although, one case, Alfredo Rolando Prieto, was sentenced to death in 1992 for a heinous San Bernardino County murder and extradited to Fairfax County, Virginia to stand trial for two murders he committed in 1998. Prieto was executed in Virginia in 2015.

Of the 746 prisoners currently on death row, 279 have exhausted appeals and the California Supreme Court has confirmed their sentence. In other words, these killers and the victim’s families are waiting for the prison system to get off their keisters and do the job California taxpayers are paying them to do.

In California, male death row prisoners are held in San Quentin, while female prisoners are sent to the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla. But all executions are currently authorized to be done at San Quentin.

Prop 62 has been tried, folks. In February 1972, the California Supreme Court found that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the California state constitution and 107 condemned inmates were re-sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and removed from California’s death row. Among those 107 were Charles Manson and his followers. Today Manson enjoys the comforts of the general prison population privileges and he and his followers regularly come up for parole hearings. Let me ask you, how safe would you feel with the Manson family on the streets, maybe even your neighbors?

In 1978, the people of California had had enough and overwhelmingly approved an initiative to restore the death penalty. Ever since then, there frequently appears on the ballot an initiative to end the death penalty. In 2012, a nearly verbatim Prop 62 initiative, Prop 34, went down in flames by a 58 to 42 percent vote.

If Prop 62 succeeds this year, there will be 746 people guilty of the most heinous capital crimes instantly thrown into the general prison population… and escaping the fair sentence of the courts. Justice will once again be thwarted.

Mary Jane’s Snake Oil

Did you know that the bark of the willow tree could be used to relieve headaches? It’s true. That is the main ingredient in aspirin. I find it odd that there aren’t dispensaries for willow bark or people clamoring to use willow bark for medicinal use. There aren’t even any backyard willow tree growers.

It’s an absurd idea, isn’t it? Imagine people munching on willow bark or even experimenting with different ways to ingest it or extract parts for a stronger product. After all, the pharmaceutical companies have done a great job of productizing the useful chemicals from the bark and creating pills in varying strengths. The FDA has even approved aspirin and lists the possible side effects of using this drug. There’s no need to chop down willow trees or strip their bark; half a dozen companies do it all for us.

Okay, let’s try to get past the emotional side of the marijuana argument and look at this in a calm, collected, logical manner.

In California, it is legal – with a qualified card – to buy, possess, and use marijuana for medical purposes. In several other states, it is even legal to use pot for recreational purposes. No card necessary.

This November we will be presented with Prop 64, an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use in California. There were petitions for no fewer than sixteen individual marijuana propositions circulating, but as of now, the only one assured to be on the ballot is Prop 64. I have two questions regarding legalization of this drug:

First, is it necessary? To get a pot card in this state, you only need a valid ID, pay the fee, and present a doctor’s “recommendation.” One might think that the doctor’s recommendation (not an actual prescription) might be the regulating part that would ensure the use of this drug for legitimate medicinal purposes. It’s not. It’s all too easy to find a quack ready to fill out a recommendation for the drug for anything from hangnails to hair loss. You only need to pay the doctor’s fee. So much for “medicinal” use.

Second, is it wise? Think about that willow bark scenario and ask yourself why pharmaceutical companies have not extracted or synthesized the useful parts of cannabis and productized it? Well, the fact is, they have.

There are some 483 chemical compounds in cannabis. The part that gets you high – and the part the potheads crave – is THC. CBN acts with THC to increase the strength of the psychoactive effect. Separate those out and you have 481 other potentially useful compounds that won’t get you high, impair driving, cause munchies, or wreck your brain.

Some pharmaceutical companies are marketing cannabis compounds for specific uses, such as glaucoma in children. Of course, the THC is thankfully removed for those medicines targeted at children. In fact, there are currently 10 known pharmaceuticals made from cannabis compounds, some with THC, and some without. To date, only three of these have met approval by the FDA. To my knowledge, none of these are approved for over the counter sale.

Why is this significant? The FDA was created in response to the rampant use and sale of ineffective and often deadly drugs (aka, snake oil). Drugs gaining FDA approval have been tested for treatment of specific ailments, the side effects are known and published, and recommended dosage is listed.

In other words, you don’t have to go nibbling on a willow tree to relieve a headache. The FDA has approved aspirin and recommended dosage while listing the nasty side effects of the drug. Just go down to the drugstore and buy a bottle of pills with the recommended dosage already on the bottle.

Why can’t the same be done with cannabis? Smoking the weed is far more hazardous – as much as ten times more dangerous – than smoking cigarettes. Stuffing the weed into brownies or any other baked goods puts all 483 compounds, some not so healthy – into that little morsel.

The worst part of taking your “medicine” raw is where and how it is sold. You can’t go down to a pharmacy, along with people buying toothpaste and foot powder, present a prescription and get little bottles of measured, tested, and labeled pot complete with recommended use and side effects listed. You go to a “dispensary” to have another pothead dole out whatever you want. Pay your money, good-bye, and good luck. Happy smoking!

As you can see, there is a huge difference between legitimate pharmaceuticals and some weed being shelled out at a hole-in-the-wall dispensary. And for clarification, licensed pharmacies dispense legitimate drugs for an intended purpose for use under a doctor’s care, while pot dispensaries sell snake-oil at any strength and amount you can afford.

Hillary Short-Circuits

Question: When is a lie not a lie? Well according to Hillary Clinton, it’s not really a lie when you “short circuit.”

An August 5 edition of the New York Times reported, “Hillary Clinton on Friday sought to explain her recent mischaracterization of the F.B.I. investigation into her private email server, saying she ‘may have short-circuited’ in her remarks during a television interview on Sunday when she asserted that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had called her statements about her private email servers ‘truthful.’”

That one is right up there with her husband’s explanation of lying. “It depends on your definition of the word ‘is’.”

I would offer that the Democrats might answer that question by saying it’s not a lie if a Democrat says it. After all, think about all the times Obama has “short-circuited” and how many times the Democrats have denied those were lies.

Well, here are the facts, direct from the July 5^th FBI report:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly denied that there were any classified emails on her server. The facts do not support that claim. In other words, Hillary did not “short circuit” she blatantly and knowingly lied to the American people, and to Congress.

Why did the FBI or even the Justice department not recommend prosecution? Cowardice.

Had FBI Director Comey recommended prosecution of a presidential candidate and that candidate was subsequently acquitted, he would have been accused of fixing the election in favor of Donald Trump. Instead, he stopped short of recommending prosecution and merely accused Clinton of being careless and sloppy.

Comey also said, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case… To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

Of course, they wouldn’t bring such a case. The Obama justice department under Loretta Lynch would have simply kicked it out of court.

No politics here folks just plain old corruption, and cowardice, and a little short-circuiting. You can’t make this stuff up.

The Great Khan Con

By now, I’m sure you either saw it at the Democratic convention or heard about it at some time on the news. I’m talking about the shameless feud between the Gold Star Khan family and Donald Trump. Shameless indeed, and both sides have their share of shame to be had.

A Gold Star family or person is one that has been awarded a gold star medal for the loss of a son or daughter in combat.

Okay, let’s start at the beginning. The DNC, as in many other elections, was not without their usual sleaze factor. From leaked dirty trick emails to rigging the election to the pre-selected candidate, Hillary Clinton, they really hit a new low when they politicized a Gold Star family. It was high drama with the appearance of Pakistani immigrants Khizr and Gazala Khan whose son, Captain Humayun  was killed on June 8, 2004, after he told his men to take cover and then tried to stop a suicide bomber outside the gates of his base in Baquba, Iraq.

Speaking at the convention in a slow and deliberate manner, Mr. Khan proceeded to release a diatribe against Donald Trump for what Khan, apparently perceived to be Trump’s intention to deny entry into the US of any Muslim. In the closing moments of his speech, Khan whipped out a pocket version of the US Constitution and offered to lend it to Trump. The cherry on top was Khan’s denouncement of Trump saying, “You have sacrificed nothing.”

Okay, that was the opening blow, and of course, The Donald is not one to ever let what he believes is a personal attack go unanswered. Trump, in his typical rambling way, said they were nice people, and in the same breath, cast doubt on Mrs. Khan’s ability to speak.

Well, it’s gone back and forth a couple of times in the TV talk shows with personal appearances from both the Khans and Donald Trump. Now every politician has tossed in their opinion as well – everyone from President Obama and Hillary Clinton to John McCain and Paul Ryan.

But what is this really about? There can be no doubt that Khans have suffered a terrible loss, only a cold, heartless person could not feel sympathetic to their loss. Is the fact that Captain Khan was Muslim have any bearing on that fact? No. Not any more than Asian and Latino families, as well as Christian and Jewish families that have lost loved ones in the military. Khan himself even pointed out that there are all faiths interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

So, what was his point? Khan said that according to Donald Trump they would not have been admitted to the country for immigration. Wrong! What Trump has on multiple occasions said is that refugees from the current war-torn countries must be carefully vetted before being allowed to enter the country, either for immigration or visitation. Until that can happen, they should not be allowed to enter the country. Now exactly how would that exclude the Khans from immigration?

And sacrifice? What is that all about? What has Hillary Clinton sacrificed, and since when is sacrifice a qualification for the Presidency? This is right up there with Obama’s you didn’t build that business – entirely irrelevant, uncalled for, and out of line.

But wait, it gets even better. Khizr Khan runs a service to help immigrants, predominantly from Muslim countries, enter the country. It’s how he makes a living! Of course, he doesn’t want more scrutiny of those he represents. It might have a financial impact on his business – something neither the Democrats nor the media has seen fit to disclose.

As for condemnation of Trump’s comments, I am completely baffled. Donald Trump is a tactless clod when it comes to speaking about others. That is a given and we should very well expect that. But did he say anything derogative about these people or their Gold Family status? Try as I might, I can find no report of any really negative response made by Trump, certainly nothing negative about being a Gold Star family.

No doubt, a tactful person would have handled the attack by Khan much differently. He might even have offered condolences for their loss, but then it would have been very un-Trump-like to do so. That doesn’t make it derogatory, though.

What is derogatory is politicization by the Democrats and media of a military family’s loss. It is, in fact, shameful, but what could we expect from a group whose candidate is a liar and scheming, dishonest career politician.

The Trump Trumpet

Well, it’s official Donald Trump is the Republican candidate for President. Like many in the Party, I’m not overjoyed at that choice. With somewhere around 300 million people in this country, I find it hard to accept that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton could be the most qualified people to vie for the highest office in the land. But, we are a democracy and, we are told, the people have spoken.

On the bright side – if there can be one – Mr. Trump is proven to be a man who does what he says. He is decidedly not beholden to any big contributor or lobbyist. Although Trump’s demeanor is distinctly untypical of any politician I can remember campaigning for any position in government, at least he lays his cards face up on the table.

Yes, folks, Donald Trump is not my optimum choice for the office, but weighing the alternative, I am certain he will make a far better President than anyone on the other tickets. The only baggage he brings is his foot planted solidly in his mouth.

On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton has more baggage than an Arab Sheik on a world tour. Someone sent me one of those circulating emails the other day that listed all of the scandalous events surrounding Hillary Clinton. You know, the ones that would have landed any one of us in jail for a very long time but because she is a Clinton have been swept under the rug? Yeah, those actions!

I can’t remember the exact number, but it may have been somewhere in the neighborhood of around 30 items that could or should have been major scandals but were merely glossed over by the media. Again, I don’t remember all the details. Yes, the Benghazi debacle and murders were on the list along with stuff from the time she was with the Rose Law Firm. And oh, yes, the mysterious Vince Foster “suicide” was there too.

The exact details of the list are not as significant as the fact that most of them made only a few lines buried somewhere after the obituaries of the major newspapers. Even worse is the fact that these incidents are not even mentioned in any news media when presenting the voters with her qualifications for the office.

Does that mean they didn’t happen? Does that mean they were not significant? Does that mean if the Trump campaign brings them up that they will be reported? No, the media is too concerned with twisting Melania Trump’s excellent speech at the convention into resembling something Michelle Obama said once that also resembled something someone else wrote….

There may be a few reasons not to vote for Trump, but there are huge volumes of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the biggest reason is that the next President will be immediately nominating a new Supreme Court Justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of Congress. The Supreme Court has become the arbiter and often definer of the US Constitution. There have been times when the court has gone beyond that role and acted to create laws by redefinition of the simple language of the Constitution.

We currently have essentially a three-person conservative (meaning strict construction of the wording in the Constitution) panel and four-person liberal (meaning liberal or even absurd construction of wording in the Constitution) panel with one swing vote in the justices now on the court. Scalia could usually be counted on as a conservative vote. If a liberal is appointed to the court, all decisions will automatically be shifted toward the liberal agenda. Anyone who might believe Hillary would appoint anything but a dyed-in-the-wool liberal is likely taking some high-powered hallucinogenic drugs. And remember, this is a lifetime appointment.

During his tenure, Obama managed to fill every high-ranking post in his administration with Muslims – some even committed to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Under Obama, we have seen the slowest recovery from any recession this country has ever had. Illegal aliens have been given sanctuary in the country, and there are now an estimated 22 million here who have no worry of being deported. We have seen major manufacturers leave the country, taking thousands of jobs with them. And, yes, you were not able to keep your health plan or doctor as promised by our President. You have probably even seen your health care degrade as your premiums skyrocket.

Do you really want another four or maybe even eight more years of Obama-like administration? That is exactly what Mrs. Clinton has promised if she is elected President. But we have seen that Hillary Clinton is not a person to be trusted. Maybe she won’t continue Obama’s policies as promised. Maybe she will do even worse.

Do We Need More Gun Control?

First, are you a gun owner? According to most sources I can find, some 88.9% of the U.S. population owns one or more guns. So, statistically speaking, it may be a safe bet you have answered yes to that question.

Now for the crucial question: Are you now, or have you ever considered committing homicide with a gun? Dumb question? Well, some people seem to think that question is not so inappropriate.

What’s that? You say you are a law-abiding citizen in good standing and would never even think about shooting another human being except in self-defense? Me too! But obviously, that doesn’t hold much water with those bent on controlling our lives. To those calling for strict federal and state gun control, we are prime suspects in the next homicide or mass murder.

Apparently, those calling for stricter gun controls are lumping you and me in with the .004% of the population that have committed homicide with a firearm. Yes, folks, we are guilty until… well, until when?

Are you offended at being lumped in with the likes of Larry Darnell Gordon, Micah Johnson, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, Adam Lanza, Major Nidal Hasan, and Dylan Roof among others? Well, you should be. These were some of the most heinous killers in recent history. They were psychotic murderers. But they were only a minuscule part of the gun owning population.

No one can possibly argue that gun-related carnage is not horribly despicable. It is something that should never happen to anther human. Then again, traffic deaths are no less tragic. Are homicides by knife or being bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat two-by-four, or golf club any less horrendous?

What is missing in this very loud shouting match is common sense. Whatever weapon is used in any killing is an inanimate object. Guns, knives, and baseball bats are only tools used by someone intent on committing murder. If you bash your finger with a hammer, you may curse the hammer, but is it really that tool’s fault?

We register and track possession of cars, but not drunks. When a drunk kills someone on the highway, is it the car’s fault? And there are many orders of magnitude more drunk driving deaths than gun homicides. Can we honestly say that vehicle registration has had any effect on the number of drunk driving fatalities?

Why then, could anyone ever believe that because a gun is registered that it won’t be used in a killing? And what about those black market guns. Oh yes, there are many. Just because a criminal can’t legally own a firearm does not mean they have any compunction about illegally obtaining one. It is a criminal act to murder someone; do you think that would make a killer think twice about illegally owning a gun?

Is there any logical way to define “assault weapon?” By reasonable definition, any weapon used in an assault would be considered an assault weapon. That would include any rifle, shotgun, cannon, handgun, knife, sword, baseball bat, golf club, or fork. Do the rounds of a rifle or pistol magazine make it any more of an assault weapon than, say, self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting weapon? It only takes one well-placed shot to kill. The most popular weapon carried in our Civil War was the Springfield Model 1861 single shot, rifled musket. That was considered a military assault weapon, yet no magazine or cartridge was even used.

It has been proven repeatedly that gun control does not reduce gun violence. People with violent and malevolent intent cause gun violence. Gun laws only make a new class of criminals, the formerly legal gun owners.

Gun control has nothing to do with guns or killing; it is all about control!

Does Trump Really Want to be President?

Well, you have to wonder just what Donald Trump’s strategy is for his campaign. During the primaries, he used personal attacks and insults to show he was not a typical politician. Great. Typical politicians seem to always be at the bottom of polls showing national confidence. Go for it Donald!

But now the primaries are over. It is time to begin looking Presidential. So, what does the man who would be the leader of the free world do? He shoots himself in the foot on national TV. He flip-flops on issues and swears he didn’t say things that were recorded when he said them. He insists on denigrating Mexicans and wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

I have to wonder just how he plans to garner enough votes to win this election. You don’t do that by alienating potential voters and huge segments of the populace. Trump’s feet have so many bullet holes in them I’m surprised he can even stand.

Uh, wait, this sounds like a pro-Hillary piece! No! Believe me, I don’t want another Clinton in the White House... ever! I especially don’t want to see Hillary Clinton as President. And although I am no Bernie Sanders fan, I believe he was shortchanged by the Democratic nomination process.

Well, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings. And that will be at each Party’s convention.

Is there any chance that the outcome of each convention will produce different nominees? Not likely. The Party rules specify the number of delegates each candidate must have to win outright and Trump and Clinton seem to have met that quota.

I am sure Bernie Sanders will protest the DNC rules that gave Hillary enough superdelegates to put her over the top. After all, it’s not very democratic to stuff the ballot with handpicked delegates.

Will Sanders bolt from the Democratic Party and make a third-Party run? I would. Bernie ran a full-on grassroots campaign and even though he promoted socialism he won a huge block of supporters, mostly young Millennials. As an Independent – he registered Independent most of his career – he could add spark to the election. With the Democrat and Republican candidates at an incredibly low confidence rating, he just might have a chance of winning.

As for Trump, and the Republican Party, they need to tie down this loose canon and put a filter on his mouth. The other day he read from the oft-maligned teleprompter… and sounded like a read candidate. Maybe that’s the answer.

But I think it is high time, the Republican leaders sit down with Trump and ask the crucial question: Do you really want to be President?