As the ongoing impeachment process turns its wheel like a soap opera straight from the day time writers, one thing is evident, there is no neutrality. Both sides made arguments that could be seen as correct and both sides are holding to their respective arguments like security blankets. As I listened, I tried my best to be impartial and what I learned was that I was not even remotely qualified to make a decision on whether impeachment is the way to go. After it was all over, I was more confused about the legitimacy of the proceedings then before it started. This article is not, though, about impeachment but how could you fix a problem that seems to be over the common persons ability to decipher and obviously does not belong in the realm of partisan politics. The answer seemed extremely obvious, at least to me. You need an impartial and neutral arena.

The government, for better or for worse and as a flight attendant that I once dated would say, is what it is. The questions that were asked by lawmakers seemed to be both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. A perfect example is the question about donations to political parties to the legal scholars arguing whether impeachment was the proper avenue to take. It was a real relevant question as it seemed to hit a bias right on the nose, the problem is though that the person that was asking the question, for better or for worse, probably did not contribute to his opposing party either and he is being a staunch defender for his side, making the question almost irrelevant. These questions are a two way street and they seemed to bog down the testimony. As I was listening to the legal scholars, I would think they are right, then I would hear the opposing view and think he is also right. Both sides can’t be right unless both sides are also wrong, it is what it is, thanks Kimberly.

So how do you get past this impasse? You need a third and neutral referee that could make that decision and they would also have to be legal scholars so they can get into the minutia of the argument and decipher the elements of the case and come up with a just decision. Wait, we do have a third part of government, the judicial branch, who happened to be experts on the law. How lucky. Or is it? This is why in past silly blogs that I have written, I expressed my concern on how judges are chosen and why they aren’t chosen by the branch of government that they work for but chosen by the two other branches of government whose fate could be ultimately be decided by them.

This article is renewed effort in trying to fix a problem which can be seen as glaring in circumstances like these. It is my belief that the judicial branch should pick their own members (judges), have the executive branch choose from one on the list and then have the legislative body confirm them. This would almost erase any conflict of interest that could come up in cases like this. While I feel that the judicial branch is as neutral as it gets, some will still argue and have argued that some judges are or were bias due to who appointed them. The phrase Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges have taken a toll on the impartiality that once prior seemed unquestionable in the judicial branch.

The constitution is over 200 years old, if my computer was over two hundred years old, it would definitely need updates. Maybe the constitution, which I always held was a living document because its writing affects living lives, should be resuscitated and given some new life. Our forefathers did their best to think of every scenario possible and they were pretty smart people, but as times roll along, their might have been problems that they did not foresee and that should be addressed. I believe giving the judicial branch more autonomy should be on the top of that list, at least in who should be hired to represent them.

What I am ultimately saying is that impeachment, a extremely powerful decision, should fall to the people that have nothing to gain or lose by the verdict, which should be the judicial branch and that’s why they should be free of attachments, as much as possible, to the other branches.



In last weeks debate, Joe Biden says he would not make marijuana legal until further studies are done and he was met with criticism by Sen. Booker. I’m not sure that Sen. Booker’s criticism was appropriate (I’m not saying that Sen. Booker’s stance is wrong, I’m only opining it). Marijuana is a popular drug that most people see as harmless and should be legalized. I think that they couldn’t be more wrong. I think that marijuana, if legalized, would destroy the middle class and poor people. Cheeseburgers and pizza are harmless but yet we have the worst obesity problem of any nation, do you know why, because cheese is mildly addictive and acts on the same neuro-receptors as heroin. BRB, making a myself a cheese melt (I’m not).

Marijuana is much more addictive than cheese and the problem will be more exasperated by the fact that this country doesn’t run on Dunkin but on compulsion. All these ads on every single electronic device are meant to make you want. They flicker, they’re bright, they’re shiny, they grab your attention and they’re repetitive (that should be illegalized). There is a prevailing thought that people that get addicted are people that have weak minds, that is a myth. Addiction has no boundaries and while some people will try it once only and some might do it in their college years and not really inhale, others will become addicted even though they might have strong minds. Just because it didn’t affect you that way doesn’t mean that it won’t affect someone else in a more dangerous manner.

The other problem of note is playing in courts today. Juul is defending themselves against State Attorney Generals because they targeted minors in their adds and because they made flavored vapes that would appeal to minors. The States are contending that Juul acted irresponsibly, which they did, in my opinion.

Lets add another wrinkle to this, people have died from vaping, but not from vaping nicotine but marijuana. They vape the same two products with the same two external additives, the only difference was the nicotine and marijuana. The people that vaped the marijuana became really sick with some dying while the ones vaping nicotine, did not. The news has reported that vitamin E might have been the culprit but it is my belief that came at the urging of the marijuana lobbyists, that also is an opinion.

The fact is that marijuana is a money maker. Marijuana has produced large amounts of income and some people will overlook the side effects, if they can rationalize it, to rake in the income that comes with the legalization of marijuana. That’s sad and it’s also greedy. Marijuana addicts roughly 10 percent of the people that try it (and that’s a rough estimate given by the NIH, it could be higher because studies are limited, but it won’t be lower), legalizing the product would mean that up to 30 million people could use the product. That would mean that 3 million people could get addicted to the product. If we play Russian roulette with addiction, we can say that about 80 percent (2.4 million) of the people that would end up addicted would come from the middle to lower class (poor). That addiction would eventually lead to these people to lose their homes, jobs and their families would be irrevocably harmed, but its ok, because you made that extra revenue that you are now using to treat the problem. You can also honestly say that some, couldn’t give you a number, of those people only did the drug because you legalized it.

I say, keep marijuana illegal. Reduce the sentencing guidelines for the users and force them into rehab. Make the penalties for pushers stiffer and go after the cartels. If, in your heart of hearts, feel like that marijuana is safe and would boost the economy (it won’t) then have a designated place like an Amsterdam. Maybe make it legal just in Las Vegas, hell, almost everything else is, and split the proceeds with the 50 states equally. I think that would be the responsible thing to do.

In a good note, cigarette use is down to 278 billion cigarettes from a high of 631 billion in 1980. The difference was that politicians and activists started to say that cigarettes are deadly. They prohibited television ads for cigarettes and raised the age to buying cigarettes to… 21? …18? One of those and they also started school programs depicting the use of these products as extremely harmful. So what I say is, if you are going to legalize marijuana, at least you have the game plan to reduce the consumption to a couple of hundred billion blunts when it starts ruining our country.

Don’t choose money over morals, you’ll forever regret it.

Let me add that it won’t stop illegal sales of marijuana, it will increase it. That dime bag that costs $50 at the legal dispensary, will still only be a dime bag at the corner. You are going down the same path as cigarettes but with more profit for the illegal vendors and the cost of stopping the illegal distribution, which will also come from the legal dispensary back doors, will cost you more than you will profit. It is not a worth while endeavor, it seems that learning from past mistakes is not a thing that we do. Cigarettes are an anchor in our society that create more problems and costs than the tax can cover, why would you think that a more addictive substance would prove to be the answer to your problems. Your adding another element to a shit sandwich, BLT – blunts, lard and tobacco. Our healthcare system is already overridden with problems from the lard and tobacco, which produce cancer and heart problems, you now want to add a third element in order to fix it? Doesn’t that sound crazy?

More importantly, I told my son it’s not Ok to do that shit, and you’re telling him it is, so, stop it, stop it right now.

And this not a referendum on Sen. Booker’s decision, their are plenty of politicians on both sides that feel legalizing the “green gold”, “purple haze”, “pinner”, “pacman”, “Nixon”, “Maui Wowie” or “juana”, “maria”, “mota”, “yerba santa”, “queso verde” (I just made that last one, lets see if sticks) is an appropriate way to feed the tax man, it isn’t, again, in my opinion.




The Supreme Court weighs in on LGBQT rights in a case that will define if Title VII represents the gay community. I’m not a legal scholar nor am I a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I have represented myself in court and I lost horribly but I did learn a few things, number 1, hire a lawyer and number 2, the courts are not really about common sense but interpreting the laws that are already in place, some of which make no god damn sense at all. I’m going to try and see if I, as a failed pro se litigant, can make sense of what is going to happen. The nine justices are going to interpret whether or not sexual orientation under Title VII of the civil rights act pertains to the gay community. There are two ways to do that. The first is to figure out if congress meant to say that sexual orientation was originally written to cover gay people when implemented, the second is to read the law literally and ask does the words sexual orientation actually means who you are attracted to sexually, whether hetero or homo in sexuality, or what genitalia you were born with. The good news for the plaintiffs, the gay community, is that the law didn’t specifically say one way or the other what it meant. Orientation is a real fluid word that can be interpreted as to mean that whomever you are oriented to be attracted to, thus fitting the definition of sexual orientation. The other good news is that gender is represented under Title VII. In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual’s transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual’s sex. The plaintiff’s have previous case law and enforcement on their side. This doesn’t guarantee them a win, as a matter of fact, the case is being brought forth because of those cases. The prevailing thought is to feel that discriminating against anyone for any reason that doesn’t harm you, just your sense of religious right and wrong, and even that’s questionable, isn’t a good reason to fire someone but that’s not the Supreme Court’s mandate in deciding this case, it’s to decide or decipher what congress meant when they wrote the provision for the Civil Rights Act. The court has some leeway here, since sex or sexual orientation is such a broad term and can include LGBQT, the justices could just conclude that it is part of the Civil Rights Act, they can also ask congress to clarify the provision without making a ruling (I think), or they could say that it was not the original intent and shoot the case down, which would be disastrous and set the country back some 30 or 40 years by forcing people to hide their true nature just to gain employment. The thought that a person that is gay can be fired just because he/she is gay is obviously flawed and their should be protections for such discriminatory behavior. The fact is that it would be taken up by congress if the plaintiffs failed in their bid (I would hope) and give protections to these people. The prudent and just thing, now this is my opinion, is to have the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs and give them a much deserved and common sense win, since the law is so broad and open to interpretation, because it will eventually happen and why make these people wait for what we all know is the right thing to do. The ruling will be saying love who you want, it’s your choice not your bosses. Now that makes sense, doesn’t it?



Huffman is getting 2 weeks in jail for a college scandal. 2 weeks, can you believe that none sense. I don’t know what’s happening to this country. People are going to jail for 2 weeks. Huffman should appeal that decision, that’s ridiculous. Why are you putting this lady in jail at all. There have been other people that have done the same thing and the Justice Department didn’t even deem it worthy to investigate. Because she’s wealthy, they are going to put her in jail. That’s not a reason for someone to go to jail. You’re socioeconomic class is never a good reason to put someone in jail. She’s getting punished for being rich. I know that might sound funny but once you allow socioeconomic reasons to dictate jail sentences, the poor will never get a fair chance. If you can lock people up for being rich for doing something dumb that didn’t hurt anyone and that a middle class or poor person did before and didn’t get any charges filed, then they laid out a blueprint to do the same thing to poor people and letting rich people off. A great example is the big bank bail outs, they knew that their actions would do harm yet not one banker saw the inside of a prison, a poor person robs a bank, basically the same thing the rich person did by other means and they get 20 years. Huffman shouldn’t see a day in jail. Laws and punishment should be constant, they should not conflict based on personal issues. FREE Felicity Huffman. FREE Felicity Huffman. For some reason, I don’t think that will catch on.

Marriage is the cornerstone of a civil society


Marriage is……

Limiting yourself to one woman telling you are doing it all wrong, I told you so, great job genius and at least you tried, I’ll take care of it myself.

It’s also knowing that they still love you even after that.

marriage 1

“Noting that the Supreme Court in Jaycees “anchored the freedom of expressive association in the First Amendment,” and “identified the freedom of intimate association as ‘an intrinsic element of personal liberty’

“Marriage is a fundamental right where freedom of personal choice is protected to a heightened degree (Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, supra; Zablocki v Redhail, 434 U.S. 374; Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, supra; People v De Stefano, 121 Misc.2d 113, 121). As such, an expanded zone of privacy attaches to the marital relationship (Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485, 486, supra). Thus, absent compelling State interests, interference by the State with the intimacies of the marriage relationship, including sex, would violate this right to privacy”

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is worth kicking your ass if you try something stupid.

After Shootings, FBI Agents Association Calls on Congress to Criminalize Domestic Terrorism (NEWSWEEK)


“Domestic terrorism is a threat to the American people and our democracy. Acts of violence intended to intimidate civilian populations or to influence or affect government policy should be prosecuted as domestic terrorism regardless of the ideology behind them,” the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA)….

That’s a fair statement and an unfair statement at the same time. I think, to make it completely fair, that ideologies, if those ideologies promote violence, and who and how they came to be, should be part of the criminal trial, regardless who was behind the shootings. A full investigation would and should include exactly how these people became mass shooters and should include anyone, i.e. people on 8chan, that had anything to do with this hysteria. You locked up the blind sheikh because of hate speech that incited violence, something we all agree with, why would you not do it for domestic terrorism? That would mean that anyone, regardless of how they influenced these young and impressionable people to commit these horrific acts, should face the justice system. I don’t care if they whispered it, did it through an internet site, had a group meeting, hypnotized them or through magic by wave of hands, they should all be held responsible if just one person is injured. I don’t think half measures are going to get the job done.

In New Jersey, they stopped a domestic terrorism case with no one getting injured, why does anyone have to get injured?

We all know the story of Frankenstein and how he was brought to life with electricity by the doctor who instilled in him, through that method, a desire to kill. Shouldn’t the doctor also be held responsible?

Every Congressional and Senatorial Elected Person Not Native To This Country Must GO!!



These would be the only members of the legislative body left. The only four Native Americans. LOL. Maybe this what the President meant. Dealing with four people would be a lot easier then dealing with 400+ people. I wonder what  these elected officials were thinking. These non-Native Americans are sure crazy as hell. Immigration started in 1492. Why stop a tradition when it has worked out so well for us. We’re great because of immigration, not despite of it.

We are the greatest country in the world, with that I agree with the President. We are also the most diverse country in the world. I think that there is a direct correlation to that equation.


michael fine

An Ohio lawyer hypnotized six female clients and then molested them. Now he’s going to prison.

The use of hypnotism, or any other outside method, to influence another person to have sex with you is wrong, and criminal. If you didn’t know that, then there is something wrong with your moral compass. The unsuspecting women this individual preyed on will never be the same and this selfish, obviously desperate and psychopathic person could not tell the difference between right and wrong. Does anyone feel that using any method, other than your personality and what the lord or evolution bestowed on you, to start a romantic relationship, is right, especially on an unsuspecting person? These individuals did not know what was happening to them or why it was happening, but he did. Michael Fine was well aware of what he was doing, even if his victims did not. Now this individual is going to jail for 12 years, I don’t think that is enough, but one of his victims said that they were serving a life sentence, so why shouldn’t he.

When a person is that pathetic that they must resort to extreme methods to control their unwitting victims just for sex, then that person is capable of doing anything to anyone at anytime. Michael is an extremely flawed human being, given the opportunity to hypnotize someone and say or do anything, he chose to have or make the person have sex with him instead of putting the person at ease or imbeding  some kind of wisdom or kind thought.

The problem is that Michael Fine, and people like him, don’t think they are doing anything wrong. They think it is, well, ironically and apropos, perfectly fine. It makes me think of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution. There is a reason why people like Michael can’t procreate and no woman would sleep with him, I’m sure the same reason why he had to resort to such methods in the first place, it’s because either evolution or God wants him gone and his demonic (if you believe in God) or defective genes (if you are an evolutionist) were meant to disappear from the planet so it won’t infect another human being.

The problem with Michael and every person like him is that they reason that the woman wants it or that they are promiscuous or that something in their past warrants this happening to them or that they liked it because they feel themselves some kind of blessing that must share it with every woman. This is the common tale of every person that rapes another. They are the same tired excuses that are given repeatedly in their defense prior to be sentenced to jail. They say it like it excuses their actions.

The true test of a person is when you have the ability to do anything to a person and you seemingly won’t face any consequences, what will you do?

So, what will you do?