Take the Challenge



  Now we have just witnessed murder on behalf of The Resistance. Yet it is still Trump, not The Resistance, that is the danger to democracy? But let’s put that up to a challenge. If you are up for the challenge read through the materials below:

Trump supporter gets shot in the head

Trump supporter gets kicked in the head

Trump supporter gets framed for rape (read article below):

   Also: I have written before about a former Trump supporter Gordon Sondland – who originally supported Trump then later opposed him. Thus, we have an excellent case in point for who is the real evildoer: compare what happened to him when he was supporting Trump –

    1) his own Congressman led a boycott against his business

   2) he got Me-Too’ed by several women

   3) threatened with prosecution by the SDNY, etc. vs. what happened afterwards:

   1) Trump fired him from his diplomatic post; and that’s it.

  So, in the spirit of the challenge, who was more dangerous to Sondland: Trump or the Anti-Trumpers? (And, by the way, why did the boycotting, Me-Too’ing and the threat of prosecution stop once he flipped against Trump? Did he suddenly become un-guilty due to his flip – or just become of no interest to The Resistance anymore?)

  I go on. But the last one: the people who are burning everyone out, looting them, etc. – and the politicians who are allowing them to do this. Are they Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump?


Criminalizing Political Differences


   Pay attention to this: this is described as the behavior of someone deemed to be the aggressor: “the police complaint cast Baca as seeking to protect the statue, then defending himself against protestors who were pursuing him while he backed away from them, using pepper spray to douse the oncoming crowd. Baca’s retreat continued, even as the group appeared to maliciously pursue him, with several people striking him with their hands and legs. The protestors also hit him with a skateboard and tackled him.”

   This complaint goes on until it reaches the following “Then (after all of the above) Baca fired several shots. The crowd scattered.” And it is BACA who is being charged! For reals. The following news article then goes on “Keller acknowledged concerns about the initial criminal complaint” (I would think so!) but the article goes on to describe how a prosecution-in-search-of-a-crime works. He will not charge anyone but Baca for the melee (not even a masked person who kept repeatedly hitting him with a skateboard) because he claims he can find ‘supplemental’ evidence suggesting he threw a woman down before the melee ensued.

   Even if he could find this new ‘evidence’ it means nothing. He had already backed totally down from whatever had happened, was in totally retreat and everyone could simply have stopped what they were doing until the police arrived. You can block someone from leaving a crime scene until the police arrive – but once a fight is over it is over. The new ‘evidence’ – sought after by someone who acknowledges being a prosecutor in search of a selective crime against only one person – still has no legal relevance even if it does exist. Read the article for yourself:

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

   Also, a legally armed group was also arrested after they disarmed Baca and kept him surrounded until the police arrived (what I talked about earlier – exactly what you ARE supposed to do in this type of a situation). And, though, the fleeing assailants have all now been identified they have never been arrested – and won’t ever be.

   This is just another reason why voting Democratic is not an option if you care about our democracy. It used to be two parties w/ the same basic concept of America – and that did the fight strictly in the ballot box. But in every blue state it is the same garbage. The dictatorial lockdowns are still being done long after there is any justification for them. The looters are rewarded – and the resistors against the politically correct new chosen ones are selectively prosecuted. It is just hate and criminalizing political differences.









    The biggest danger, arising from George Floyd’s horrible murder, is that the answers from it are going to be wrong at every level. At the present time, most people are set to come away with both the wrong take on what happened to Floyd. As well as all the wrong takeaways to be learned.


   From my own records, I will take out an incident report (IR), by a police officer, that is a totally doctored IR. The document was, ultimately, discredited and all charges were dismissed on constitutional grounds. The IR was doctored to cover for the unconstitutional behavior of the citing officer involved.

  The backstory needs to come first. An officer came to feel that an elderly couple was some type of a grey-haired version of Bonnie and Clyde. Presumably, they were dealing in ‘grey’ market automobiles. This is where you purchase a wrecked automobile (for chump change) and get it back out on the street – but do not go through the proper processes. However, he decided (and for his own reasons that only he knows for sure) not to treat it like a standard traffic stop. Instead, he went through his own procedures hoping to go after a ‘Big Bust’ – that simply wound up a bust!

   He started by running a data search on the owner of the car (the female member of the couple who was not driving) to try to determine the identity of the male driver. (No, he did not simply approach the male driver – and get started with the normal processes. Your guess is as good as anyone else’s as to why.) After determining who the woman’s husband was, he then ran his record, found an infraction and then finally got out of his car – but still did not immediately start his initial approach.

   Instead, assuming the male driver to (most likely) be her husband, he then put it to the test: he first remarked that “you have an expired driver’s license”, noticed the reaction of the driver and – only after, apparently, getting his confirmation – did he finally complete the approach, take the driver’s license from the male driver – and then go back to his squad car again without another word!

   Going forward some more now, there is modern science and how a police car’s scanner works. All of a person’s driver’s license and car info are immediately available in nanoseconds from a police car’s scanner. Thus, between his bizarre gambits and the scanner, he had already established the driver’s identity and any outstanding legal issues, all the car issues and should have had little more to do. Instead, after a long sit in his car before the initial approach, he next did another long sit in his car before finally emerging out of it – with yet another citation!

   And, if you are paying attention, it was the type of a citation that should already have been either confirmed to have occurred – or confirmed to have not occurred – in the first nanoseconds of the stop. Yet, after another 20 minutes of mining info from somewhere, he is presumed to have come up with another traffic write-up. Now down to what a doctored IR looks like.

   Well, we have three main aspects about the officer here:

      1) he went about the traffic stop in a way that violated the case law

      2) it involved utterly unexplainable and erratic behavior by the officer and

      3) he came up with contradictory results between what the system should have said about the traffic stop – and what he said about the traffic stop.

   Considering this, I guess it was a case of shame on me (yes, I was the one cited in this way above). I was still not aware, in advance, that his IR was going to be a complete fabrication. (Which it, ultimately, was).

   And here (in a short form version) are some of the ways in which it was. It ignored the initial long wait in his car before even stepping out of it (and what he was doing in there). It reversed the order of the events, that were documented, to remove the apparent contradictions. After all this, his IR only accounted for a time span of around 6 ½ minutes for what he did – with the other 20 minutes going into a limbo status. But here is the best demonstration on why a doctored IR is utterly worthless:

   What possible motive could the officer have had to make up both sides of a casual conversation (consisting strictly of idle banter and nothing of any real import or legal relevance to the matter) out of whole cloth? I have no idea why he should have had any reason to do that but that is precisely what happened. The IR has me engaging in some back and forth idle banter items with the officer – when absolutely no conversation occurred between us at all.


   What you have been given above is a type of an autopsy of a fabricated Incident Report. This was done to prep you for my analysis about the Floyd murder materials. I will go, systematically, through the materials and I will then ask relevant questions.

   1) Pigeon English was, allegedly, spoken by a store clerk where Floyd, allegedly, tried to pass a fake $20. All of this comes from a transcript released by authorities. It does not come from the clerk, there is no audio released to verify the voice, there is no full context. Parts of the alleged call seem ridiculous – he describes Floyd as 6 feet tall when he is much, much taller than that. The call, as given to us, refuses to identify his racial status until he is pressed into doing so.

   2) We are told he was intoxicated, not acting right, etc. Remember the autopsy about “possible intoxicants”? What does a real autopsy say – did he have alcohol or some impairment in his system or not? Yes or No?

   3) The fake bill still had wet ink and was obviously fake. Why hasn’t this bill been conclusively tied to Floyd? If it still had wet ink, then his wallet would have the same wet ink in it if the bill was really tied to him. His fingers and hands might have had the matching ink on them. Where is the physical evidence – that should be available – to tie him to anything?

   4) If he intended to resist arrest then why did he stay around waiting for the police? What about the two people supposedly in a car he was sitting on? Why haven’t they been a part of the story?

   5) The more obvious parts of a ‘construct’. A ‘construct’ is what it sounds like: someone reasons out “how should I construct a story so that it fits the facts – and provides me cover”. We are told he was passively resisting – didn’t they have to say that? He could not have been aggressively resisting arrest – or it would have made a scene.

   They had to maintain he was resisting in some way – or they could not justify their behavior. So, the story reads that he was passively resisting but in a low-profile way that would not make a scene. We are told he was already saying “I can’t breathe” before he was being manhandled. Of course, they are saying that – how else can you reduce your culpability? Except by entering some other wild card factor into the equation – regardless of whether it happened or not?

   6) And the most mysterious character of all: the hapless clerk who (we are told) did the call-in to the police. But it was called in as a quote “forgery in progress(?)” (and what in the holy heck over is that?). But it then morphed into counterfeiting, while still having accounts about Floyd looking like a Freddy the Forger type who was on the lam, which somehow ties into all of this … exactly how? The clerk was under duress to do like he was doing (he didn’t want to be involved), his story is erratic and contradictory, his behavior shows someone in some type of an uncomfortable situation for some reason, etc. Is there more to the story of the clerk? 

   And I could go on and on. But I put out the autopsy of a faked incident report for a reason. It is obvious the police involved (in Floyd’s death) could not put out an accurate IR – so a doctored one is inevitable. Thus, it is entirely possible for everything – and I mean everything – about the whole incident to be totally made up. I know: I have a totally made up report – right next to my right elbow as I am typing up this article.


   You can even learn something new from the latest stunner news report – except that it is not a stunner. It is just a confirmation of what I have said all along. I hope it is not overbearing but let me remind you of where I have been at all along. From my very first posting on 5/30/2020:

   “Urgent Warning (especially if you are an African American citizen): In spite of the enormous pressure to do so, please don’t jump to the immediate conclusion of “Racist, racist, racist” … and here is my most immediate take that needs to go out to the country.

I woke up this morning with what may be one of those “Aha!” moments. For now, I am only going off my general sense of what I saw (and some gut feelings) and it is this. There was no racism in the Floyd murder because it was a Murder Number One, by a corrupt cop, and done for reasons that had nothing to do with Floyd’s race. It is possible his murder victim just happened to be black but was murdered for other, and more deliberate, reasons.”

   It should be noted that this posting came out one day before a newspaper article mentioned them both working at the same night club. At the time I wrote this, I had no specific connection to nail it down to – but I was still certain of some connection having to be there. Once the (possible) connection of them both being connected to a night club came out, I did a quick post the next day (5/31/2020) that contained the following:

  “For reasons like these (and some others) I believe that some interactions between these two people – at a local club in the area – may be more likely a reason for Chauvin’s actions than their interactions in the police car. To help you deliberate on these matters, I now have the connecting link below about possible connections between Floyd and the Police officer. As well as a thorough breakdown of Chauvin’s actions towards Floyd:

Floyd and the Police Officer

   But you now have the confirmation about the alternative motive for Chauvin to murder George Floyd. I knew that such an alternative had to exist even before it was shown, first, to be possible (the article about a night club connection) and before, secondly, it was shown to be an active, hostile connection between the two that could easily account for an alternative motive (the attached news video clip below.)

Confirmed: Chauvin had an alternative motive to kill Floyd – that had nothing to do with their last interaction!

   But there is still much that is being missed even with the new revelations. The two standout matters that have bothered me about the Floyd murder are the personal nature of the murder (now confirmed) and the urgent nature that Chauvin placed on doing it (still not fully explained). As mentioned before: he must have known he was being live filmed in the commission of his murder – so why did he feel that he still needed to keep doing it?

   The current knowledge that Floyd was, in some way, in his face and being an annoyance – before the day in question – still does not account for that type of an urgency. It could aid in giving Chauvin a motive for the murder. But it cannot possibly explain his sense of urgency at getting it done, then and there, and no matter what. This type of thing only comes about when someone is some type of a danger to a person like Chauvin. Which, in turn, seems to be only accounted for if Chauvin is corrupt and had no choice but to commit the murder for some form of self-preservation.

   I will, therefore, make another set of declarations about the nature of Floyd’s murder:

      1) The narrative must stop invoking race, which had nothing to do with Floyd’s murder. It must also stop invoking excessive force or general policing issues which also had nothing to do with Floyd’s murder. It just needs to focus on a particular corrupt officer – and a deliberate murder conspiracy – as the motivation for his murder. (For those who have an interest in further research: I am leaning towards it being a Len Davis, aka, ‘Robocop’ (click Robocop) type of a murder – an incident of a corrupt police officer in New Orleans from many years ago).

    2) Chauvin needs to be prosecuted at the federal level so that he can be tried for capital murder – no other action can be appropriate at this time. (This was also done in regards to the above mentioned Len Davis). Chauvin, most likely, has orchestrated a first-degree murder conspiracy, for reasons of corruption and enlisted the help of others to act as co-conspirators.

     3) There are people, other than any of the police officers, who are also among these co-conspirators and

     4) Because this is a matter of official corruption, we must assume that this corruption could be far-reaching and involve a large network of people – unless it can be shown that it is otherwise.

   And here is where I will try to wrap up this point on getting the right take on the murder. First most, isn’t this supposed to be the most important thing – before we get off onto our political opportunism and our grievance culture? Think of his moments of Hell – even before Chauvin started executing his intentional murder on Floyd.

   Now that we know – that they knew each other – does not Floyd’s pleas of “He’s going to kill me!” take on new meaning? Even before Chauvin began killing him, Floyd may have had every reason to be afraid – and he might well have been aware of that! This, and so many other unresolved matters, is what disgusts me. What is wrong with us that we can’t wait until we have actually solved his murder – before we start deciding what it all means and start using it as our pet hobby horse for our pet issues?


   Everything that has happened for the last several weeks is all fake. Everyone involved in the matter – from Chauvin on the one hand, to the local DAs CYA activities on the next hand, to the opportunistic people using Floyd for politics on the other – are all being fake. The arrest was just Chauvin trying to use a faked up situation to execute his premeditated Murder One conspiracy – and done strictly for his own personal reasons. But, like everyone else, it is in his interest to let the racial narrative get played. And for an obvious reason – minus the current faked up scenario – he would probably be getting charged federally as a capital murder case.

   Then you have the DAs office. They know that Chauvin, most likely, was not the only crooked police officer in the entire Minneapolis/St. Paul area. That’s why he first obfuscated with “possible intoxicants” styled autopsy reports. But now, like the rest of his local law enforcement, he just wants an out on the best terms he can get – that will unearth as little of their own corruption as they can get unearthed. And to keep the rest of it swept under the rug as much as possible. Thus, he also is fine with the racial narrative being the one that gets played out – to keep a distraction going.

   Also, we now know that Floyd’s own family has not been completely forthcoming. First, we have a clip where it is shown that Chauvin had an alternative motive to kill Floyd – that had nothing to do with his arrest. We then get a grudging confirmation from his family that there could have been other things involved. But what about the several days before they were confronted by the new news reports? Wasn’t that a rather inappropriate omission – when you are still dealing with an active murder investigation of one of your own family members?

   You need to pay special attention to the news clip also – to not get confused. The clip did not say that it was revealed to Floyd’s family that there were other motives involved, they were caught unawares by this and then, and only then, made a statement about other possible motives being feasible. The clip states it otherwise: that they already had a previous opinion that other motives could have been involved. But they withheld this until they were confronted by the new news stories.

   Thus the obvious question: what could have been their only source for their information? The only source they could have had for their grudging confirmation (about something personal between the two people) is George Floyd himself – and before he died. Apparently, Floyd was telling them about his prior Chauvin connections – and Chauvin’s prior bad acts – before his murder. So what all was he telling them – and what all are his surviving relatives still not telling us?

   It is just more fakery. I will not take away from them that they are grieving severely – and with an absolute total right to be doing so. But, tragically, they also appear to be involved in politicking at the same time. They, also, are letting it all play out on strictly the racial narrative – and are playing along with it all being loaded up with all of the different political ramifications that can be bootstrapped onto it.



   But I must stand my ground here: getting the right take on what happened is still relevant at getting the right takeaways. The most obvious relevance is that the right take on what really happened – and why – debunks the entire racial narrative. For what about that most often asked question: would it have still happened to him if he were White? Of course it would have! If you have the bad fortune to run across a corrupt police officer who wants you dead to protect his criminal interests – then the race of any of the parties involved will never make any difference at all.

  At the end of the day, the Floyd murder is just a textbook case of someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By happenstance, he came across a corrupt police officer and caught him out in his corrupt doings. He then, predictably, wound up as a murder target of this same corrupt police officer. The matter then played its’ way out in the same way it would have played itself out – if any one of the rest of us had been in the same situation.

   This is why I feel that all of this radical schlock being peddled – by exploiting his death – is just as much a disgrace to his memory as the looting and rioting. For there is no evidence that Floyd himself believed in any of this radicalism – and there is considerable evidence that he did not. His own life is a classic case in point.

   Floyd’s life had a downward spiral that started while he started making bad choices with it. His downward spiral reversed when he reversed his bad decisions. And he, himself, always conceded this. There is nothing in either the life, or the expressed views of Floyd himself, that justifies exploiting his death to do a takedown of our system, to blame game White Society or to be anti-police. Therefore, his political exploitation – when he is no longer around to speak for himself – is just as much a disgrace to his memory as the looting and rioting.

   Everyone is trying to force fit racism into a story where it does not exist. And, while I know people don’t want to hear this right now, pushing for notions about systemic racism – and on grand scales – is a total cop out anyways. The worst failure by White Society is, actually, White liberals who won’t tell people things that they have to hear. There is a reason we have such a generation in crisis of young African American citizens. It is because they are taught to make all of the wrong personal choices, to do everything in their power to be their own worst enemy – and then to blame White racism for the catastrophic shape that their lives are in.

   And look at the police shootings – these are, in fact, a case in point for what I am saying. The shootings always happen in the worst areas of the country where people are acting out in their worst behavior. It is not a coincidence that you see so little of this happening in the suburbs and rural areas. African Americans live and work in these areas, also, but they have little to worry about from the police because there is so much less of the bad behavior going on that causes the police to even be involved.

   And even if you feel it is bad police work at work, this still highlights how the current African American generation is taught to act like their own worst enemies. When things like this happen, it will almost always be a case of systemic corruption in the local government – not some type of a systemic racism in all of America. For it is these local governments that are the only bodies – that have the constitutional authority – to supervise and regulate your local police.

   Further, these people are democratically elected by the people in those local areas – not by “White Society” or “The System”. So just what is this White man in the room supposed to be doing anyways? As long as the current generation of African Americans keeps electing people like, say, Lori “The Whack Job” Lightfoot to be their Chicago Mayor how I am supposed to still keep Chicago like the Garden of Eden – simply because I am the White Dude in the room? If you want to keep being your own worst enemy, then how am I supposed to still save you from yourself?

    Similarly, it is these local people of Minneapolis and St. Paul who have kept re-electing these same corrupt people into power in their local governments. Example: I have already detailed the mass obfuscation of the local DAs office before. But there is still more when you look deeper into Chauvin. Both Chauvin – and his behavior – date all the way back into both an Amy Klobuchar as well as the current DA. It is everyone – in that local power scene – that may have something to hide – not “White Society” or “the System”. Or that there is something at the national level that is somehow to blame.

   Another demonstration: Chauvin was a walking set of red flags for police misconduct going back through all his years on the force. But the local law enforcement establishment in his area is elected in a Yellow Dog Democrat electorate – and with the African American voters in the area giving it their 90-95% electoral support.

   So … please explain to me how a White Republican, like myself, who lives in a Federal Way in Washington State was supposed to have been able to stop Chauvin – and from hurting people in Minneapolis? And let’s go ahead and finish out this segment around Chauvin – but with the understanding that he was a Minneapolis/St. Paul problem – not a White Society one. Other examples about him: 95% of all officers never use lethal force in their entire careers. But Chauvin was involved in it on four different occasions. The average police officer draws less than two complaints per decade – or slightly less than one every five years. Chauvin drew complaints at nearly five times the normal rates for most other police officers. His work at a night club – that Floyd also worked at – is also another case in point.

   He used his badge to stay out of trouble there too. He pepper sprayed customers, was totally over the top and made the proprietor of the club extremely uncomfortable. He only got the job – and kept it – because of his police connections – and probably combined with his corrupt behavior as an officer.

   If you were attentive, you would know that the proprietor of the club was a liar when she originally stated that Floyd and Chauvin never met or knew each other. (Review the above hyperlink Floyd and the Police Officerif you need to refresh your memory). We now know this to be untrue – and that she almost certainly would have to have been aware of the trouble brewing between Floyd and Chauvin.

   But, like everything else that is relevant to why Floyd was really killed, this is left off the table. For, after all, why blame the actual killers of Floyd when you came blame White Society instead? White Society is such a better whipping boy.


   Getting back to an earlier point: pardon my noticeably short and blunt candor BUT the best way to get people to quit dumping on you is to stop re-electing them – not to blame White Society. Whether it is the St. Paul/Minneapolis area (where Chauvin happened) or any other area where a controversial police action occurred it is the same pattern. Every case happens in an area where it has been a One-Party State of Democrats – and for such an unbroken time that there is no longer any accountable involved.

   And in all cases of this, it is the African American voter who gives them their votes at a 90-95 rate of approval. So how in the blank am I supposed to do something about it? If somebody repeatedly does a dump in your face – and you repeatedly re-elect them – then just what is it that I am supposed to be doing to rescue you? These people are completely awful, but they are your completely awful people because you keep re-electing them!

   The pattern:

      1) In ALL instances – with zip of an exception – every controversial police action happens in a Hellhole Zip code. These are the areas where civil society has been allowed to go into a free fall.

      2) In ALL instances – with zip of an exception – every one of these areas’ leadership team is a Democrats Only One-Party State of longstanding.

      3) In ALL instances – with zip of an exception – every one of these leadership teams gets re-elected – every term – with the runaway support of African Americans and White Liberals.

   Therefore, I must end a lot of what I have said with a hard line. I want to be a “Republicans with a New Outreach” type of person but if I lose at my efforts to reconcile with all people, then so be it. Because there are simply times when pure BS is pure BS – and this is such a time. If you do not want people to keep dumping on you then quit re-electing them to do so. And stop blaming White society for your inability to pay attention to what you are doing in your local ballot box.

   And, since police officers can only be regulated by locally elected authorities, then what other option is there but to pay better attention to your local ballot box? Should I convert America into an immediate dictatorship by federalizing all the local police forces? Should I take away people’s voting rights altogether?

   Someone could easily stop the situation (with the total free fall of society in the inner cities) if they could take away people’s voting rights and act like a complete dictator. But, since that is not going to happen, you are – again – simply going to have to start taking ownership of your own conduct in your own local ballot boxes. Get control over your own life before you complain about others.

   Also, I do ask that you not deflect the matter back to me for being somehow ‘racist’ for my ending on a blunt note. If I am really some type of a Kool-Aid drinker for the White Police Officer – then why do I do wrongful conviction investigations? You cannot have a wrongful conviction without somebody doing something wrong – nor can you oppose one without being willing to admit that somebody can get something wrong.

   Nor am I a snooty, aloof country clubber who just cannot do a ‘get’ on the matter. I am blue collar all the way and you do not get the money to become otherwise if you are working pro bono – as I do on my wrongful conviction investigations. Further, there are many people (like myself) who believe in an enormous number of practical, pragmatic solutions to the blight that is so harming the African American citizen in the inner cities of today.

   But how is any of this supposed to happen – if the far majority of African Americans keep voting for the same people who have sent the inner cities into a free fall in the first place? You re-elect the same people in repeatedly – and someone else is supposed to have a “collective culpability” – if they cannot make it work out to a different outcome?

   As hard line a position as it may seem, I say again that there is a time to call things out for the way they are. I love and respect the African American citizen but there is no other alternative here. I have to call this whole thing out as complete and total garbage – and pardon my candor!





    A first matter: people are failing to grasp the clearly erratic behavior of all the law enforcement establishment in Minneapolis. I have mentioned the earlier, fake autopsy before but it gets more fake the more you look into it. The autopsy’s reference to “possible intoxicants” should immediately jump out at any reader. An actual autopsy can’t possibly refer to “possible intoxicants” because that is what an autopsy does – it tells you whether there were (or were not) such things in his system in the first place. The only reason for “possible intoxicants” to be mentioned is to try to buttress a witness account about “possible” intoxication. But the toxicology exam (part of every autopsy) should have removed any doubts on the matter – either the one way or the other.

   But a more disturbing second matter: I have finally gotten some info I was looking for: the actual words spoken during Floyd’s murder. And I confess: I could have had this earlier if I had listened to the video/audio tape for myself – but I simply could not do so. I watched the video but kept the audio off: it is simply too sickening.

  And the audio part shows more of what I have said. The audio shows that there was something deeply personal going on between Chauvin and Floyd; something that went way beyond whatever was going on at the last particular incident. This continues to be a needed part of the investigation: it could show the matter to be much deeper (and to involve more people) than just Chauvin and his immediate crew.

  It also continues to remain un-investigated for the reasons I have talked about earlier. We have a crime that is done so sadistically that you know something more is involved than just a random encounter. But this is also a lot like other high stress situations – it is difficult to get anyone to think more deeply and to see the obviousness of some things. We are still stuck with what people have simply assumed since early in the matter.


   Please go to the Current News! page and see the 6/07/2020 post. Matters like this are not the only things being overlooked under the inflamed feelings that currently prevail.





   I know that some of my material may be premature. Some of it will be non-controversial while some of it will call on people to think outside of their comfort zone. Which, at the present time, is not something that most people want to be doing. Therefore, I will limit myself to two general issues. And then there will be a third issue where I will simply ask some questions – and they are only questions – to leave to each person’s own consideration.

   ISSUE ONE: Always listen to people who are just encouraging you to ask more questions. As I have stated before, I hope there are African American citizens following my Floyd articles – and all its updates. If not, then I plead with anyone – who is reading it – to encourage African American citizens to start following it. That is the audience that I am addressing with this first issue.

   Let us say that you are an African American and are in an awfully bad state of mind right now. I am your conservative leaning White Male with an (R) behind my name. Nevertheless, I am merely asking everyone to be willing to ask more questions. Thus, there is not a whole lot of reason for us to be at odds with each other.

   And I do feel that this is needed right now. If the Chauvin case just follows the standard racial narrative (about racism and excessive use of force) then he could wind up with less than 15 years of imprisonment. Whereas, if the suspicion that I have is correct, and it can be proven in court, he could – conceivably – get the death penalty. I have discussed my suspicions before and there will be a follow-up video coming out later. But , for now, there is much more involved than you are being told – and much more involvement by others. (All of which will be swept under the rug if it all about racist, racist, racist – rather than what actually happened).

   At the end of the day: it is still just a case in point about this first issue – the need to ask more questions. Though my thoughts on the matter may diverge from the main way of thinking (at least for now), I am still only recommending that people should ask more questions. Hopefully, there is not much that is controversial about that point.

   ISSUE TWO: Always listen to people who are just seeking pragmatic solutions – that will lessen the number of bad things that will happen. Does this necessarily lead to a THE ANSWER? Probably not, but it could still lead to less bad things happening.

   Now, I do not have the space to do an exhaustive every-possible-answer presentation. So, simply to demonstrate that pragmatic solutions are possible, here are two items that are simple and basic. They could be ways to gradually change the system for greater transparency and accountability.

   1) Whenever an officer writes someone a citation or does an arrest, he must notify the citizen involved that a) he will write up a full incident report b) the incident report will be available for his review with 48 hours and that c) he is strongly encouraged to either verify – or to contest –  what is in this report at the soonest possible moment.

   Now, obviously, this does nothing about a lethal incident! But what if Chauvin had been required to show greater transparency and accountability since Day One of being a police officer? Is it at least possible that he either:

          a) would have learned not to become like the Derek Chauvin that killed a man later or

          b) he might have gotten removed (as a police officer) earlier on (before he killed someone)?

   Granted, this is a minor reform. It probably will be the most help at contesting, say, traffic citations. I know – I was in an instance where I found out (several months later) that a totally bogus incident report had been written up by my citing officer. And, of course, this was only after I asserted my legal right to see a copy of it.

   The more minor point is that knowing this immediately might have been helpful. But the more major point: what if all officers are on notice that they will be required to make it happen that way? Then maybe there would be a lot less bogusness going around in some of their write ups in the first place.

   Again, this is a basic but minor change up. Still, don’t most officers first start to go wrong on the things that are basic and minor? The earlier – and more thoroughly – you get accountability going on in an officer’s career the better for everyone. But let’s move onto something considerably less minor.

   2) The formal civilian complaint. Again, the answer is to get the average person involved rather than trusting beaucrecies to handle our disputes. There already exists a US Mediation Service – and they do free mediation between victims of crime and the perpetrators who have been incarcerated for these crimes. If they are capable of doing this, then why not mediation between average people and a police officer? How can the one thing be more difficult than the other?

   I can’t do a long write-up but there is a quick reason to consider it as the way forward. Get people better educated about what is really going on. “Knowledge casts out fear” said the Apostle Paul – and I agree with that. Police officers can not possibly know what is going on inside the heads of all the people they have to deal with. And most people are ignorant of what is going on inside the officer’s head. Thus, mediation – between the officer and the complainant – would force this ignorance to come to an end.

   3) And then the worst case scenario: how do you get rid of a police officer and/or discipline one? It has always involved “the system” of government officials controlling the process in some way or another. But why not try, again, a more direct process – in all events where someone is killed or seriously injured? That is, an enhanced type of grand jury is convened (one that is composed of the residents in the area where the matter happened). Then you have them decide the fate of the officer?

   All the matters that would normally go into a shooting review board (or other forms of internal hearings done by “the system” of government types) would now be devolved. It would all be aired before a citizens group empaneled as a grand jury instead. And it would be an enhanced grand jury because of its enhanced authority.

   They would have the power to do an utter exoneration of the officer. No charges, no disciplinary measures, nothing. They could direct a firing or lesser punishment of the officer in lieu of criminal charges. Or they could direct that criminal charges be brought forward.

   Clearly, this is another type of a proposal that could use a long and detailed write-up that this article does not have the space for. Nevertheless, I will give a brief statement on why this has to be the way forward that totally re-writes “the system” as it applies to police accountability. My statement centers, again, around citizen education.

   One thing that would, unquestionably, happen is that the average citizen would become more involved in the process. Thus, hopefully, becoming better educated about the process. And, thus, become less hostile towards the process – and more accepting of its results.

   For I would imagine there would be less contentiousness, by the average citizen, about the results of the process – if the results came about by means of the average citizens themselves. Again, this would not change things in the most extreme instances – like how the trial would be conducted if charges are filed. But the point here is like the first point: to stop the extreme instances from happening in the first place.

   Chauvin had a long list of complaints against him that might, under a different type of system, have gotten him drummed out earlier. Or, again, the extra accountability – and directly to the people themselves – might stop the Chauvins from becoming like Chauvin in the first place.

   Now, I do not claim there is such a thing as a THE ANSWER – because there is not. But anything that causes a greater – and earlier – level of accountability (and more directly back to the citizenry themselves) will still improve the officer/civilian relationship. And (hopefully) mold a better group of officers who will be less likely to become like a Chauvin in the first place.  

   ISSUE THREE: Finally, I do hope you will always be willing to listen to a dissenting voice. I do want answers – but not false accusations and a dysfunctional society. I say this because nothing will totally get rid of every Chauvin type, every time, so that nothing bad will ever happen. And, though not intended, that is – essentially – what is being demanded here.

   These types of expectations are usually something that is implicit – no one is directly making such a demand. But, all too often, people simply do not think things through thoroughly enough – and wind up making such a demand without even realizing it. I will try to draw this matter out with some basic questions.


   1) I am White and you are Black – how much more control does that give me over other people’s free will decisions?

   2) Is there a probability curve involved in a country with 330 million people living in it, i.e., that there will always a significant number of evil people around? How much control does my white skin give me at bending this probability curve? With these two starting questions in mind, consider some others:

   3) Is it physically possible, for a White man, to create a world that does not have a single evil human being in it? Is it physically possible for any man to do this?

   4) Is it physically possible, for a White man, to create a world that does not have a single Derek Chauvin in it – with his particular type of evil? Is it physically possible for any man to do this?

   5) ASSUME that I am no more able to create a Chauvin-less world than any other person.  Then why am I more collectively (or personally) culpable for his acts than any other person? Lastly,

   6) ASSUMING that it is not possible to create a world with no evil people (or Derek Chauvins) in it: then which party do you feel is the most to blame for this – the White man, the Black man or Adam and Eve?


   1) Is it possible to create a world with less evil people in it?

   2) Is it possible to create a world with less Derek Chauvins in it?

   3) ASSUME several things about statistics (for the moment):

      a) as a percentage of the whole, people like Chauvin are exceedingly rare.

      b) as a percentage of the whole, the number of lethal encounters between the police and unarmed African Americans is exceedingly rare. That is, there are around one dozen per year – but in a country that has multi-millions of incidents where the police may be in contact, in some way, with a person of color.

      c) That both these percentages of the whole, as well as the actual numbers, are better this year than they were the last year, which was better than the year before that, which was better than the year before etc. and

      d) That this trajectory appears to be continuing: that the next year should be better than this one, the year after that should be better than the year before it etc.

   If true, then why shouldn’t the takeaway be that we should keep doing exactly what we are doing – but to simply see if we can do it faster?


   1) Is it a correct reaction to keep re-indicting all African American people for, say, being somehow dangerous – every time there is some type of a violence in some of America’s more distressed communities?

   2) Is it a correct reaction to keep re-indicting all white people for some type of a collective culpability – whenever any other white person does an evil act?

   3) Is there any reason why both reactions are not just as inappropriate as the other?

   4) Is it POSSIBLE that we are setting ourselves up for failure? A hypothetical: There exists one, and only one, person like Derek Chauvin in the entire world. At some one point in time, he then acts out with his evil acts. But under today’s rules, we must then re-indict all White society for his evil act – and because we have some time of a collective culpability for everything that he does.

   Does this mean that we must set up a world where there is not a single Derek Chauvin? Or that, if not, then all White society must simply accept being repeatedly re-indicted for other people’s evil acts? And that this simply needs to be accepted as a part of a new normal?

  5) Even if we were to, willingly, accept this burden, would we be doing a helpful act anyway? Or is it POSSIBLE that there is such a thing as a dysfunctional relationship – where neither person is ultimately helped by it? And, finally,

  6) Is it POSSIBLE that such a situation would, effectively, set up an all the way murderer – like Derek Chauvin – with the power to swing a veto over the rest of society? As to whether we should be allowed to get along with each other or not? If so, should there be a concern about just how dysfunctional such a situation would really be?


   At the end of the day you must decide if a valid point has been made – and as to what that valid point is. But just consider: If someone were to walk into any room and say, “Hi, my name is Derek Chauvin and I am an all the way murderer. Would you like me to swing a veto over whether you should ever be happy and get along?” wouldn’t most people say “Hell, no”?

  But isn’t that what we are, effectively, doing when we set ourselves up for failure with unreasonable demands and expectations? Of course, every murder is hideous. And the George Floyd murder has got to be one of the most hideous ones that I have ever seen. But how do we help ourselves out by demanding that bystanders must also be held morally accountable for it?

   Is it POSSIBLE, that like every other issue, there has to be a two way street? We must figure out better ways for people to act but, maybe, there also need to be better ways for people to react?  Especially since we will never live in a world where the number of Derek Chauvins is going to be a complete zippo? I leave you to God’s grace and your own considerations.





  The latest update (on why I am right that we need to ask a lot more questions):

   1) Fake autopsies: Fortunately, Floyd’s family got their own expert involved. They then demonstrated that the DAs office put out an erroneous autopsy. But what is most suspicious is the DAs initial response to the crime.

   He, purportedly, had info that could be exculpatory for Chauvin. But how could he have had it – at that time? Even the fake autopsy had still not been done yet when he was claiming this. One possibility? He knew that the autopsy would help the Officers – before it was even done – because he was a part of an effort to fabricate one.

  2) Could this even be an entirely fake scenario altogether? You can be sure that there was no Rodney King style of resisting arrest – even if for no other reason than that Floyd was an even larger and stronger person than King. So where was the big melee if Floyd was doing something like this – it seems to be an awfully tame scenario for this story line to be true.

   Also, the more I read about Floyd’s Christian ministry work in the Third Ward in Houston, the less sense the whole thing makes. The scenario of him drunk, on drugs and passing off fake bills is totally atypical of his recent life for around the last ten years. Is this even one of the possible prior connections between Floyd and Chauvin that I have been checking into?

   Floyd’s typical manner, in his more recent years, was to crusade against things in Minneapolis that were corrupt and/or broken. Then, in the other corner of the ring, are corrupt people wanting things to remain corrupt and broken. The gong sounds, when things come to a head for some reason, and the bout begins – but in a way that was set up to get Floyd out of the way.

  How do we know – whether this is true or not – until we start checking things out? Was he too much in-the-know due to his common work at a night club that Chauvin also worked at? Was he too much in-the-way because of his recent passion to be a reformer – in a corrupt town that may not have wanted it? Is a combination of the two? Something else altogether?

   We must start asking questions because the one thing that I am 100% certain of is that the current scenario (strictly a racial narrative around the last isolated set of events surrounding his death) is a total fake. I do not buy into any of it. Unless we starting asking more questions, we could wind up with wholesale corruption (and other possible issues) all getting swept under the rug because of a too narrow look at only one possible aspect of what happened. And, per my last update, from us getting too caught up in the current uproar to see other possible issues and ask other possible questions.





   Have you been keeping track of my updates on the Floyd murder? If so, you are aware that I am pursuing a, possibly, neglected aspect of his murder. But why am I doing this: my constantly going against the grain of current thinking?

   I have both strong and deeply personal reasons for why I am doing this. And it ties back to an event that happened 25 years ago – where people were also very scared, enraged and, thus, were not willing to ask enough questions. To bring you up to speed about this:

   I am one of the very few people in this country who qualifies as an expert on the Oklahoma City Bombing. (For documentation on this click here: See it for yourself ) And for a tragic reason: it has nothing to do with my being such a great researcher. It instead comes from virtually everyone else having totally shut their brains down. To stop being analytical and to keep asking more questions. For example, no one working for the FBI qualifies as an expert on the bombing.

   Why? Because they just went along with the uproar, grabbed the first person who looked good for it and then did an utterly incompetent investigation. It was done straight out of a TV Cop show style: “We already know who did it, now we just have to prove it”! That is an actual quote from one of their ‘scientists’ connected to the investigation.

   They then continued with their gross incompetence: they shaped the crime to fit the suspect, worked out what they needed their witnesses to say and then molded them properly until they said it, etc. In short, the average FBI agent has less of an idea of what really happened that an average citizen who might have been willing to hear both sides on the matter. For every FBI agent only investigated one side of the matter – and with a total set of blinders on all throughout.

   There are also no experts on the tragic bombing among the journalists or people in the “clattering” classes. It is because they felt no need for competent, objective journalism. They also liked just going along with the uproar.

   They had their pet bigotries that anyone who was a little bit bizarre in their politics (by their standards) was also the last of the big-time baby bombers just waiting to go off. Obviously, then, since McVeigh was way out there in politics – and he was accused of being the last of the big-time baby bombers – then what more needed to be said? “We already know who did it, now we just have to prove it.”

   And the least competent observers of the case are the jurors who heard all the (non) evidence. The Justice Department was given cart blanche to bring the public uproar (with all its inflamed emotions) into the court room – in lieu of having actual evidence. And the jurors were swept full bore into the uproar and gave them their conviction – in lieu of having actual evidence.

  So … what is my claim to fame on these matters? It is called “evidence whispering” – you meticulously vet through every piece of evidence in an utterly anti-emotional, strictly analytical manner. And with no incoming point of view on guilt or innocence. Something, that to the best of my knowledge, has never been done by any other person. Thus, my reasons for claiming that I am one of very few people who is an actual expert on the Oklahoma City Bombing.

   But what did I come up with then of any real note? How did my more analytical approach work in real practice? Versus, say, just riding the uproar? Here were my three main takeaways that I came up with through my approach:

   1) Nothing the government did, through its’ inept and slipshod investigation, was going to make us any safer from the same people who did the bombing

   2) The way they (the feds) could run amok would just make us less safe from them in the future – due to their willingness to abuse their powers and

   3) that, despite this, it was still far from certain that we had even executed the right person for the right crime

   I wrote all these conclusions down in a published book almost 20 years ago. Since then here is what has emerged per each of the points listed above:

   1) Long after I wrote this down, someone infiltrated a white supremacist group in Oklahoma. He rose all the way up to the No. 3 position in the group. And discovered an awfully bad secret that is reserved, apparently, only for the people in the No. 1 and No. 2 slots in these groups. Here is what he found out and how he did so:

   He and the No 1 and No. 2 people were all together. The other two told him to wait behind while they conferred with each other. Naturally, being an undercover informant, he eavesdropped on their conversation.

   And …. they talked about doing another attack on a Federal office building – specifically the Ernie Cable building. This was one of the buildings that McVeigh was sent out to look at and, apparently, they seemed to be the recipients of that information. Thus, per point 1 above, how can we really be that sure we are safe from a hit number two – and, apparently, from some people who appear to have a connection to hit number one?

   2) Per point two above: what kind of lessons did the FBI learn from being allowed to cut corners and to do slipshod investigative work? The lessons they learned do not seem to be particularly good ones. For I will now tell you a tale of two Inspector General reports.

   One report showed a virtual run of corruption in the FBI practices about a FISA warrant process – where you can eavesdrop on American citizens. All the rules were broken, none were followed, it was a complete mess. And what was a very recent, second Inspector General report about? It was about the FBI’s response to the first report – and how the FBI has (effectively) told them to go straight to Hell with all their suggested reforms!

   3) Per point three above – after all this: did we even hang the right people for the right crimes? Shortly before McVeigh was executed the FBI even became aware of a fifth rate blunder in their investigation – and frantically sought to get an interview with him. Too late; he turned them down and was executed shortly afterwards.

   Now, sometime after his execution, the FBI came across what were supposed to be his bomb making materials. One place for them came from an anonymous phone call (that could not have come from McVeigh or any of his known associates) that detailed exactly where to find some of these materials inside the walls of someone’s house. And this person did not claim to have ESP powers, has never been run down for who he is and remains a mystery.

   The second place where the alleged bomb making materials showed up was in a skinhead safehouse in Cleveland, Ohio. At least that is what the lawsuit was about. But, like the items above, there was no transparency by the Government on these matters at that time – and there has been no meaningful follow-up to these matters since then. For, after all, why do you still need to ask more questions when “We already know who did it?” or, in the Floyd case, where everyone already presumes to know the why of what they did.

   But we do not. We do know the what of what has happened. And it is that a Derek Chauvin is an all the way murderer. And that the Hennepin County DAs office is doing an all the way obfuscation. But police officers have done murders before – and for other than racial reasons.

   And, similarly, you could say that the DAs office is doing a Blue Shield/Racism thing. Or, it could just be a Crook Shield/Corruption thing where everyone feels the need to do a CYA. Both are possible – and how are we supposed to know which one it is until it is exhaustively investigated?

   And there are important ramifications involved regarding which of the two most likely motives it is. So, we do need to know which of the two most likely answers is correct. But we do not know, and nobody appears to be interested in checking it out!

   Thus, after 25 years, I find myself in another come-full-circle moment. Why do we, after every particularly horrible event, have to all act like well-trained circus dogs – and each start jumping through our usual hoops that we feel the most comfortable with? Why we do always have to our minds totally made up in the first 15 minutes after the bomb blast, in the one case, or in the first 15 minutes after the seeing of a hideous video in the other case? Why can’t we ever just do it like the law says – and keep asking more questions until we have had the chance to run down all the necessary information (to get all the necessary answers)? All I am saying is that we are still not there yet on this matter and we still need to keep asking more questions.







RESPONSE TO QUESTION ONE: In yesterday’s posting, I documented how Chauvin went into a well-organized and committed plan to do a Murder One on Floyd. I also explained why it is unlikely he would do this just off their dealings for that one last incident they were involved in together. In the materials that follow, by way of a hyperlink, there are now reasons to believe that Chauvin and Floyd may have had previous connections. Also, that the Officers’ behavior was even more extreme than previously thought.

   In a following hyperlink, it is stated that Floyd was successfully handcuffed and was sitting in the car. Then, for some reason, Chauvin pulls him out of the car (while handcuffed) puts him into position on the ground and then begins an organized Murder One operation. But which thing is really the more statistically likely to switch the officer into his actions at such a point in time: Floyd said some kind of general badmouthing like “I know you to be a Pig M’er F’er” – and thus Chauvin got motivated to go into a premeditated murder mode? Or would such a switch into such actions by Chauvin be more likely if Floyd had said (or done) something (at some time either during their last encounter or earlier) that ran afoul of him due to him being some type of a crooked cop?

   For reasons like these (and some others) I believe that some interactions between these two people – at a local club in the area – may be more likely a reason for Chauvin’s actions than their interactions in the police car. To help you deliberate on these matters, I now have the connecting link below about possible connections between Floyd and the Police officer. As well as a thorough breakdown of Chauvin’s actions towards Floyd:

Floyd and the Police Officer

RESPONSE TO QUESTION TWO: As to the level where Klobuchar used to be at (the county prosecutor) – and where there is a new One-Party State of Democrats now operating – is there corruption there also? It is one possible explanation for their efforts to try to tag just one of the officers as the scapegoat for the whole thing – and to not prosecute all of them. The actions of all the officers present was so deliberately and fully coordinated with Chauvin that there is no logical or legal reason not to prosecute them all equally. So why won’t they?

   Corruption can be a satisfactory explanation. If everyone is corrupt, and at all levels, then there is no way for one part of such a grouping to go after some other part – because they all have the same potential exposure. Everyone could close ranks behind using just one of their own to get sacrificed – to get the pressure off everyone else – but that would be about it.

   As to Klobuchar herself, there is now a documented connection between her and Minneapolis’ past problems in these matters. I have a link, to follow this, where she defends herself – but very lamely. She blames the grand jury system for not getting enough accountability for police officers that misbehave. And, thus, shifts any responsibility for her past actions on to them. Below is the link:

Klobuchar and the Police Officer


  Sorry for this final link but we have to see this with our own eyes. The way that some people will exploit a situation – and for what possible purpose??? Click on the link below (if you dare).

What a way to disgrace George Floyd’s memory!





   Urgent Warning (especially if you are an African American citizen): In spite of the enormous pressure to do so, please don’t jump to the immediate conclusion of “Racist, racist, racist”. But I say this for a reason you may not find that objectionable; so I hope you will still read this full article and the continued updates I intend to make to it.

   Here is my most immediate take that needs to go out to the country. I woke up this morning with what may be one of those “Aha!” moments. For now, I am only going off of my general sense of what I saw (and some gut feelings) and it is this. There was no racism in the Floyd murder because it was a Murder Number One, by a corrupt cop, and done for reasons that had nothing to do with his race. It is possible his murder victim just happened to be black but was murdered for other, and more deliberate, reasons.

   As noted, I will be doing updates in the upcoming days as I have a chance to analyze it more fully. Below is what my immediate thoughts are:

   1) The behavior of the police officers was so bizarre. They obviously had a crowd of  people pleading with them – that they deliberately ignored. I can only go on general impressions but I had the feeling it was like a desperate hope that they would just go away (or there would be less ruckus) if they would just keep ignoring them.

   Based on past experiences and analysis, however, this is a very unusual state of mind for a law enforcement officer to have – if he is operating in good faith and is just doing his job. Thus, again based on past experiences and analysis, I was struck with an immediate feeling that we were missing something as to why. Were they acting like guilty people because they were guilty people – and were perfectly aware of the wrongfulness of what they were doing?

   2) The more I have thought about it, the more I have come to believe that their actions were very intentional – and that they were very committed to doing what they were doing. Because, referring to 1) above, why not simply stop what they were doing when it was starting to become a very brazen act? Thus, it seemed to show them being extremely committed to doing the act that they were doing. But why? Again, this obviously doesn’t tell us the exact “Why” of the matter.

   3) Maybe their is more of a “why” to be gotten out of something unnoticed: I don’t think any one has paid any attention to something else odd on this matter. If the officer had positioned his victim just a little bit further behind his vehicle he might have committed the murder without ever being noticed. This is what leads me towards Murder One as my possible belief. Maybe he just screwed up – he didn’t quite get things positioned in the way that he intended.

  4) The way all of the officers continued to do virtually no reaction no matter what was going on around them. There is a very fundamental reason that this is chronically atypical – even in cases where officers might be crossing a line. In virtually every one of these cases, even when the officer gets it wrong, there is still some type of a provoking act. And which is then followed by behavior showing the effects of adrenelin and their having been provoked.

   Not in this case. The behavior of the officers was so cold stoned stoical and cool-as-a-cucumber – even while continuing to do such an act with no provocation – that it throws the whole matter into a just-doesnt-feel-right category by me. But, again, with all of the ruckus starting up, why be that committed to doing the murder at that time and place?

   5) Is the answer to 4) that they are crooked cops with something to hide – or that they did not want obstructed in some way? And was Chauvin thinking (at least at the moment he maneuvered Floyd into position) that this might be an opportune moment to commit a murder – and masquerade it as something else?

  These are my immediate observations on the actual murder. If something more on this comes in I will add more. But it is also important to go to the underlying reasons and larger issues involved. And on this matter, I already feel a good reason to be certain of myself. And that it is a tale of increasing corruption (between two cities) with one person as a central figure in both cases – Senator Amy Klobuchar.

  The two cities I am referring to are Washington, D.C and Minneapolis/St. Paul. In our home page message, I have talked at length about what happens when you make a city a One Party State of the Democrats. This is why Minneapolis and St. Paul have become an increasingly corrupt city. The more that you look into Klobuchar as a former DA the more this will become apparent.

   She also has a personal connection to the murdering police officer and I have already written a piece about other corrupt matters centering around her. And yet, she ran as a Presidential candidate. She now has her hat strongly in the ring to be the VP choice for Joe Biden. That is why I am writing this as an urgent article. Granted, at least at the moment, it is hard to think about anything except the way that Floyd was murdered,  but we must still also think of other issues. The immediate one being that the future career of Ms. Klobuchar goes precisely no where. She must never be the President, the Vice President or even do a continuing term as a U.S. Senator any longer.

   As I stated earlier, I will keep updating this article as I have a chance to do further analysis. After each update, I will specify that it is ready in the Special Bulletin note on the Home Page. And as to the second city and its’ increasing corruption: Washngton, D.C.? This is amply covered by the material I already have on Klobuchar. So, for now, just keep tuning in.


Komrade Klobuchar – and her thoroughly Marxist code of Morality

In one of my Current News! blurbs, I promised an expose on a ‘Amiable’ Amy Klobuchar (or is she?). Here, I fulfill my promise and also raise some more important issues.


   I talked, in some earlier writings, about the Resistance. Namely, that “they have made a phenomenal decision about ethical issues. And it is that ALL forms of ethical behavior are no longer relevant to their version of pursuing The Greater Good.” And I promised you that “… through these articles, I will show you why I take the stance that I do.”

   But why a reference about Marxism? Simple: it is not Marxist economics that I am referring to but to their stated moral credo: “whatsoever advances the cause of Marxism is moral and whatsoever inhibits the cause of Marxism is immoral”. In other words, Marxism also has a general philosophy that THE CAUSE is all – and that, therefore, THE ALL is still justified – and without any limits. (Like the Resistance also believes).

   And this is not an exaggeration – I refer you to just one (of many similar type statements) made by Pelosi. “… If people who don’t share our views wind up as collateral then so be it.” On top of everything else wrong with it, isn’t this also the ultimate dismissiveness of others? That is, I might be an honorable man, but if I do not happen to share her views, then I am acceptable as collateral. Click below if you don’t believe me that she really said that.

Hear it for yourself: Pelosi Live!

   So, what I am ultimately talking about, regarding Karl Marx, is not his economic system. There are few people that still believe in that. It is his ethical philosophy that an enormous amount of people (who have real power) have, in fact, come to believe in.

   And now, to demonstrate this, we come to the specific example of this article: do you believe that it is morally acceptable to do frame-ups – for rape – to stop someone from opposing Roe vs. Wade? This is precisely what was done during the Judge Brett Cavanaugh hearings. Klobuchar, along with all the Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did precisely that – and I will accept the full burden of proof that it will take to demonstrate that:

    1) Were the things being said by his accuser false?

    2) Did they know that what she was saying was false?

    3) And did they still orchestrate rape charges against him anyway – just because of their concern that Cavanaugh might oppose Roe v. wade?

   Questions 1) and 2) above should have had obvious answers – and from the beginning. Picture a scenario like this: The witness claims complete ignorance of multiple matters: that she had the right to be heard in camera (privately), that they would come to her (rather than her to them) if she preferred it that way, etc. All of these matters were brought to the attention of her lawyers (who acknowledged being made aware of these matters.) And who, by law, were required to bring them to her attention (under possible penalty of disbarment.) Yet she stated, under oath, that she had no knowledge of any of these matters.

   Conversely, her lawyers made multiple representations to the Committee, ostensibly on her behalf and in consultation with her, regarding multiple matters. All of which she then repudiated before the Committee once she was brought there and put under oath. One example is their representation that she was afraid of flying and, thus, she could not come to them. She then acknowledged having no such fears when questioned under oath.

   Or were the lawyers, seated on either side of her, even her attorneys who should have been speaking for her in the first place? This has also come under legitimate question. The attorneys, on her either side, were directly asked who her attorneys were – with the right to do her legal representation. Their answer had not just one, but three, bizarre aspects to it.

   1) It was not an immediate answer! If you are her proper attorneys, how much thought (and length of time) does it take for you to simply say so?

   2) A long time elapsed, other things went on and – eventually – they responded with a non-answer. They said “We are not being paid for our services and expect no repayment.” So? Do I get to show up for your capital murder trial and dismiss your legal representatives because “I am not being paid and expect no repayment?”

   3) Where’s the paperwork? Have you ever hired an attorney – minus the paperwork that shows that they represent you? To this day, no one has still been shown any of the appropriate paperwork.

   So, just going this far, how can you have a panel of attorneys (the Senate Democrats on the Committee) not being painfully aware of an ensuing melt down? And, to anticipate a question, there is no mudslinging going on here by some partisan, Mark W. Christamasomebody type. You have the witness contradicting her own attorneys (if they were even, in fact, her attorneys). And you have the attorneys contradicting their own client (if, that is, she was even their client in the first place).

  So, onto the third item that needs proof – to maintain that Klobuchar and Co. did a deliberate frame-up. Did they still move forward anyway to deliberately orchestrate an inappropriate proceeding? Well, according to their own words, yes.

   You have Democratic Party operatives standing out in the Senate hallways – looking at the people who were there screaming into everyone’s ears and spitting in people’s faces. It is not just that they did no condemnation of what they saw. Instead, they would talk out loud (no attempt to even masquerade their antics) about how they were responsible for the circus atmosphere.

   There was talk about how they set up these people with their wardrobes and signs. They even made up front announcements that “We can’t allow this (the Cavanaugh confirmation) to happen. We are going to use ‘street’ rules.” And on we could go. And we will go on a little longer – with a down-to-the-details approach. So far, we have just looked at the more general, backstory aspects of the matter.


  The witness against Cavanaugh was a Christine Blaise Ford – who accused him of rape. That is, after she was kept under wraps for many months by Democratic party operatives. And many people, including myself, believe it was because they knew she was a weak item.

   For those who want to do their own research, get a hold of a Mollie Hemingway. She is the author of an excellent book, “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court.“ She also feels certain (as I do) that the Democrats knew that their witness was weak and unreliable.

   But there is much more than just the suspicious way that the Democrat party operatives were acting. There are some clear specifics available about why her recollections were weak and unreliable. And many stronger reasons to believe that Klobuchar/The Senate Democrats were fully aware of it.


   Also, this is well known to all people in the law enforcement community. (For those who want to research this assertion, and my upcoming ones, see the work of an Elizabeth Loftus.) Next, the Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have literally hundreds of years of law enforcement between them.

   So, we will begin with a “What are the odds?” question. What do you feel the odds are that a group of Democratic Senators (with a couple of hundred years of combined legal experience between them) would be abysmally ignorance of these issues? That they would have no notion of perpetrating a miscarriage of the process – by pointing such a witness at someone for political reasons?


   The number one red flag for a false recollection is when someone just remembers, somehow, being some place or doing a certain activity. But then has no recollection about anything that precedes it or comes after it. (This is referred to, in a shorthand way as “no before and after”.) There is even an easy layman’s explanation for why you should agree with the experts about this.
   Follow: if your memory is about a real event then it would have to be both preceded and followed by other actual real events. But if your memory is about a false event then such preceding and following actual real events cannot even exist. That is why, when someone has a false memory recollection, it is virtually always accompanied by a totally flat lined recollection of before and after. It is simply because no before and after actually exists in such an event.

   It is also why trauma can produce clouded and erratic recollections but nothing like this. What causes trauma, and how people react to it, is a totally randomized affair. Thus, it does not occur in a ‘neat-lined’ fashion. That is, with a specificity of a one set of events – that is then neatly suspended in midair with nothing surrounding it.  This only occurs in false recollections and for the very logical reasons just discussed.


   Any qualified expert will totally confirm this. Especially the part about this being problematical even in the best of circumstances. And, clearly, Ms. Ford’s recollections were not handled in the best of circumstances. What instead happened is that she was kept in the care of partisan operatives, and on a surreptitious basis, for several weeks.


I am 100% percent certain of the following items:

   1) Ford’s recollections on Cavanaugh are a false memory recollection
   2) Ford’s recollections also had a lot of other quirky aspects. She claims to know things (or people) that she could not possibly know. On these items, they may not be her recollections but are ‘recollections’ that have been provided to her by others. This is a contaminated memory recollection.
  3) The Democrats on the panel, with their significant experience in the legal profession, were perfectly aware of the type of pitfalls that could occur from using such a witness. But they still did so anyway – even despite their full knowledge of the possible problems involved.


   In case you need to see something like this with your own two eyes: I can refer you to a real-life event that was documented in a major motion picture. It is out of production, but I believe it is called “Forgotten Sins” starring a Daniel Shea. It is the real-life story of a well-respected deputy in the Olympia, WA area.

   On television you can watch a Dr. Eschoo, a professional neurologist who is still alive, observe a “no before and after” recollection. His precise statement is that that is the number one red flag for this specific type of a phenomenon: the false memory recollection. This is the precise retelling of an actual event that you can watch for yourself on a television screen. This is not just a Mark W. Republican type only talking politically. If you can get a copy of the movie, you can watch everything happen this way in a real-life case, with a real-life neurologist and doing it in a clinical diagnosis – in a non-political environment.

   Dr. Ford also had some unmistakable mixes of both real life and fantasy situations. She has a Mark Judge interacting with her (and her with him) while she is being accosted by Cavanaugh. Then she has him jumping up and down on the bed a couple of times (and for no discernable reason) until this makes it possible for her to escape.

   This is also like the real-life movie: the real-life doctor in the movie also makes a precise statement about mixes of fact and fantasy – and there being red flags for a false memory recollection. In short, you have another precise retelling, of an actual event, that you can watch for yourself on a television screen. Therefore, if you are not convinced by my write-up, then you can observe it with your own two eyes.

   A final tell-tale factor: this phenomenon often happens when therapy is involved in attempts to recover memories. She did, at some time, go into therapy. And then, at some time, became a victim of a false memory recovery. This does not prove, per se, that the one thing relates to the other, but it is the most likely source.

   To quote a study: “When memories are “recovered” after long periods of amnesia, particularly when extraordinary means were used to secure the recovery of memory, it is now widely (but not universally) accepted that the memories are quite likely to be false, i.e. of incidents that had not occurred. It is thus recognized by professional organizations that a risk of implanting false memories is associated with some similar types of therapy.” (From a study by Brandon S, Boakes J, Glaser D, Green R (1998)).

   A quick recap of other studies also shows that these types of recollections can have some blending of real events comingled with the non-real. It is true that Mark Judge, a P.J. Smythe and others were associates of the nominee. And it is true that her friend Leland (obviously) was an associate of hers. But it is also true according to Leland (as well as many others) that the two groups of people (Leland and Ford vs. Cavanaugh and associates) never met to socialize. Yet her allegation involves her and Leland, at a social event, with Cavanaugh and associates – that Leland (and all others with knowledge of the matter) maintain could never have happened.


   As to my claim about the people that used (and manipulated) her: it is not a mere presumption to take my they-must-have-known stance. This is easy to determine: for all law enforcement bodies in today’s world DO know about all the potential problems with eyewitnesses. Even going back 100 years there have been some routine precautions, i.e.,

   1) the need for more than just one witness. Also, that the witnesses need to be independent witnesses      

   2) keeping certain items secret so that you don’t get false confessions

   3) keeping people’s faces out of the media (and keeping witnesses separate) so that an identification is not influenced by things that they may see and hear, etc. This is just the standard stuff dating back for many, many years.

   But in today’s world there are legitimately done scientific studies (en masse) that relate to every possible aspect of eyewitness testimony. All of which are done in some type of a conjunction with law enforcement agencies. Klobuchar and Co. do know about all these issues (and without question) because they were a part of the law enforcement community – ALL of whom know about these types of matters. Feigning ignorance on something like this would be like claiming to be ignorant of a Miranda warning – while still being a long time member of the law enforcement world.

   One last tidbit matter about (non) Amiable Amy before we get back to the main points about her. She has 3 NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) filed by her in the court system. She is not just a well-known batterer of her staff; she has had to settle (at least) 3 lawsuits – and thus the NDAs. This was done so that her image would not suffer along with her pocketbook. She is just not the Amiable Amy type she presents herself as – she is very much the opposite.

   But to the specific issue here (about being a former DA who does frame ups). We have discussed Cavanaugh at length and can now go to other cases where she has acted this way. For the Cavanaugh matter may not be the only case where she has acted this way. She is now being dogged by a blast from the past that seems to have a lot of corrupt elements to it.

   You have someone (Klobuchar in this case) trying to make a name for themselves as they are pursuing political ambitions. You then have someone to stick with the tab for it. An indigent defendant – who did not have the resources to fight back. His name is Myon Burrell for those who want to check it out.

   There was her politically motivated prosecution of a Kirby Puckett. In short, the Cavanaugh matter is not the only ride on her rodeo for controversial cases. And ones that have been proven to be politically motivated.

   But there is even a more telling recent development here. To pivot with the times, she now claims to have worked with the Innocence Project. This is the one attempt of hers, to do political maneuvering, that can come back to bite her posterior the hardest.

   If she is being truthful, we now have her decades of being a DA PLUS being connected to the Innocence Project – and she was still caught clueless on a textbook case of an invalid witness? And that even came gift wrapped – in multiple red flags – about her condition as a victim of a false memory recovery? Pardon my bluntness but no DAMN way. She’s a liar.

   And so were the others. Several of the other Democrat Senators (on the Senate Judiciary Committee) have the same story as Klobuchar. Further, there is ample proof of their coordination on other matters connected to the Cavanaugh circus. This proof comes from a type of arrogance where people feel that there will be no ultimate accountability. I mentioned this earlier: their discussions with friendly journalists about all their maneuverings.


   So … we need get to the ultimate issues involved here. I never take a particular person or incident and then leave it hanging there. I always try to tie these sorts of things into some broader issues. And there are many issues to be dealt with here.

   First, I will speak to a particular audience before going to the more general one. I speak, for now, to people who still want to stay wedded to PC assumptions. It is like there is a liberalish type of a Check List.

   I refer to the notion – still held by all too many people – about how the person talking to them now is the white dude in the room with the (R) behind his name. And is therefore, automatically, suspect. While, say, frame up artists like Klobuchar keep getting passes because they are on the ‘good’ side of a liberalish Check List. As a close follower of politics, I see this type of reasoning being used all the time – and I will give you several examples.

      A) Example One: PC Mayors

   Example One is back here, in the Seattle area. Here you have the most pronounced case there is of the ‘good’ ones being totally on top – if, that is, you buy into the Leftish Do-gooder Check List.

   Our current Mayor, a Jennifer Durkin, was the one who first got the Seattle Police department on the hook (for, presumably, being a bad police department). She did this when she worked as a Federal District Attorney. Then, in an almost irony, she came to Seattle and got elected to be the Mayor – to run the program she got levied against the Seattle PD in her former federal role. So how could she not be the perfect person for the job if you are still a believer in the PC crowd?

   And her fit on the Schlockishly Leftist Check List is impeccable. Female, Democrat, practices a lesbian lifestyle, fanatically believes in all the PC positions (Abort Away at any time and for any reason, ‘alternative’ lifestyles etc.) But even she still has her numerous exceptions to the rules.

   What I mean is that there is still no impartial justice from her either. Time does not permit me to go into the details. But there is still at least one instance (that we know of) where one white police officer is getting a free ride that is not deserved. While there is another case of exactly the opposite (an instance where the Officer was right and ought not to have been fired).

   But he is still being relentlessly put down no matter how many times he has proven his case to be reinstated. And, lest one say that I am doing the White Cop vs. the Black Suspect, it happens to be exactly the opposite. The one officer who is being kept put down was an instance that involved an African American police officer vs. a white perpetrator.

      B) Example Two: A Fellow Running Mate of Amy Klobuchar

   Then there is a Kamala Harris. Ran for President lately (along with Klobuchar) so you may know something about her. How does she do on the Leftist Check List? Just great, thank you very much. She is Black, Female, Democrat and PCish all the way on the ‘correct’ points of view: Abort Away, ‘alternative’ lifestyles etc.

   However, sorry to burst your bubble but she has always had a very pronounced (and infuriating) practice that she did as a DA – and then as an Attorney General. It was to keep people incarcerated on a technicality. Appellate work (and many other aspects of our legal system) have their own byzantine processes for how things are supposed to be done.

   We hear about the proverbial scheister lawyer that gets guilty people off on technicalities. Less known is that it can also go the other way too. One of Kamala’s continuing practices was to keep innocent people incarcerated because of procedural errors that were done in their appeals process.

      C) Example Three: Judgmental Judges

   A final case study here: a Miles Meeks – the celebrity who wound up doing 1 ½ years for an illegal U-turn. He is an African American performer who made some mistakes in his life. And, at the time he did this illegal U-turn, he was on probation.

   What people don’t realize is how arbitrary the law can be – if it is used by people who might want it to work that way. In this case, you have people on probation that are (normally) laxly monitored – and laxly punished even when they do get caught fowling up. Normally, the probation process is handled so laxly that it is now considered, by many, to simply be a form of early release. However, in a strictly theoretical situation, any offense can get you reincarcerated – even a very minor one. (Something that many, including myself, were not aware of).

   So, what, exactly, happened to Mr. Meeks? It started out as a bureaucratic glitchiness type of a thing. He got brought in on a traffic related item, the system got accessed and – at first glance – it looked like there might be more to the issue. However, it also looked like everything was still going to be just fine anyway.

   For he had ran into an able defender – and a non-Kool aid drinker DA. There are some of these around. They will do a necessary second glance in case the first glance might be mistaken – as it was in Meeks’ case. Thus, his day in court should have been quick and painless. You have his White Dude attorney and the White Dude DA both agreeing that it was a system glitch – and that it should never even have gone this far. But ….

   He still got hammered anyway!!! And …. Guess what? It was by a Check List Favorite. She was a judge who was a She (Female), Black, a Democrat (an associate of the legendary Ed Rendell – a Democrat fixture in the Philadelphia area). And, while I have not actually checked into this aspect of her, I presume she passed at least most of the PC checklist on Abort Away and the other PC issues. But it was she who body slammed him – and where I learned this all from was out of the Trump supporting conservative Laura Ingraham.

  So, what does the part of the public – that I am talking to now – need to learn from this? I say this from love, from being a Christian etc. etc. But the first thing that you need to do is: 1) STOP BEING SO TOTALLY BRAIN DEAD ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND 2) STOP BUYING INTO TO ALL OF THIS IDIOTIC GARBAGE WITH ALL OF THE ‘CHECK LISTS’!!! Judgmentalism comes in all forms – and all forms are dead wrong. People must always be judged as individuals – not according to a Check List. I will use a Scriptural reference here.

   At the time of St. Peter and the original apostles, the Jewish people had begun to feel that they had the corner on the whole God business. It took some divine leading to get the early Apostles to break out of this way of thinking. Eventually, Peter was finally led into what was, at that time, a radical concept.  I refer you to Act 10:34,35:

   34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”

   In other words, none of us has the corner on being among the righteous. By analogy, it is not just a matter of people from all nations – but also people who may come to the table from all different points of view. There are always people, from every political party and ideological persuasion, that are trying to take certain issues very seriously. And the concern here, about our legal and political systems, is a clear case in point.

   Someone I have mentioned earlier, a Professor Dershowitz, is a liberal Democrat and considers himself to be agnostic on questions of religion. While I, admittedly and without apology, am the White Dude in the room with a right of center point of view – and am an evangelical believer. But, so what? When it comes to questions about the subverting of our legal and political systems, we (Dershowitz and I) are one and the same person.

   Thus, it is people with political ambitions that are the least to be trusted – and, again, regardless of political ideology. There should be no surprise in what can be seen here. We see people from being a Mayor of Seattle to a judge in the Philadelphia area, to female Democrat Senators running for President – to all have political ambitions. And to all be suspect on some of the critical problems of today. If this concept does not come easy to you, then you need to rethink your entire way of looking at politics.


   But what about the more general concern here – as this affects all of us? Regardless of ideology, or where you think someone may stand on some Good Guy Check List – what happens when it rises to the Brett Cavanaugh level? Once someone has signed off on framing someone for rape – just over political differences? Then what is still even left of our political and legal processes?

   And consider, again, what you have once a frameup for rape (or, say, murder) is now an acceptable tactic of quote “street rules”. Or whatever it is you might want to call them. Isn’t the only way to one-up it from here is, pretty much, to DO a rape or a murder to advance a political agenda?

   And, just as far as the logic of the matter goes, once you have signed onto THE CAUSE is all and therefore THE ALL is still justified – then what obstacle is there to taking that next step? Chuck Schumer made a threat of physical intimidation against a pair of Supreme Court justices that he mentioned by name.

   The local leader of the Black Lives Matter movement (for Senate Leader Mitch McConnell’s county in Kentucky) went out to his house and remarked “Why hasn’t anyone stabbed the m’er f’er through the heart?”  And where are people like Amy at when all of this is going on? In addition to her own crimes, (non) Amiable Amy doesn’t seem to look particularly alarmed at these types of things going even further.

   And the hypocrisy of it all (again!). Did you know it is unlawful to make physical threats against elected officials? And do you know who has exercised this option the most often – of charging people who have made threatening statements against her?

   It is our own beloved Maxie Waters!!! That’s correct; she has specifically directed people to engage in physical harassment and intimidation against people working for the Trump administration. But, if you do unto her what she specifically directs others to do to you, she will have you arrested!!!

   But I will finish this out by just staying focused on un-Amiable Amy. To give you some reference material (if you have not already read it) go to the Current News! Page and look up my 3/09/20 posting called “My Latest Conspiracy Theory”. It states my concern why we may yet hear more from both Mayor Pete and Amy before the 2020 election.

   In other writings, I have already stated why Mayor Pete is not an appropriate candidate for higher office. This article lays out why Klobuchar is also a very inappropriate candidate for higher office. Be so advised as far as the current election cycle goes. But what about our future elections?

   For Klobuchar is the ultimate hypocrite on democratic values. She supported the removal of a democratically elected President through a legal proceeding – that was an utter farce. She supports holding up lawful actions, done by a democratically elected President, through endless judge shopping and court challenges. She supported criminalizing Brett Cavanaugh’s hearing rather than letting it work out through the normal democratic processes.

   And then look at her entire reason for doing that. It is about the battle on whether judges – or ballot boxes – should be the main determiner of what type of a country we should live in. She supports judges that block ballot boxes from deciding issues. While there was a chance that Cavanaugh might start re-allowing ballot boxes to resume deciding issues (rather than judges).

   In short, the only person’s democratic rights she is in favor of are her own – and everyone else’s democratic rights can go straight to Hell. Thus, a blunt warning is called for: it is not possible to have two antithetical realities living side by side – and on an indefinite basis.

   Klobuchar, along with most others in the liberal establishment, believes in antidemocratic values. Ballot boxes, a two-way practice of the First Amendment, the proper legal and political processes – in the world of Klobuchar – all take second place to whatever THE CAUSE is in today’s world. While the correct values (set of priorities) for a democracy should be this:

      1) Ballot Boxes

      2) A two-way (for real) 1st Amendment where all sides of an issue get intelligently discussed. And only as a Priority Number 3 do you get to

      3) Whatever side wins it after the 2 items above.

   But Klobuchar believes in exactly the opposite – THE CAUSE must always come out on top and no matter what it takes to make it happen. This is the critical issue of our era. For myself: first and foremost, I am a supporter of ballot boxes. Secondly, I am a supporter of a for real 1st Amendment where intelligent discussions, from both sides of an issue, get heard. And, only thirdly, am I a supporter of an opinion that I may happen to believe in. In that order.

   But we cannot continue to have a political process where we democratically elect leaders like Klobuchar – who then practice antidemocratic values. Because of the two irreconcilable values involved, sooner or later, we must either get rid of the type of elected leaders that will then act undemocratically. Or, these types of leaders will, eventually, get rid of the democracy (in any meaningful fashion). Choose you this day whom you will serve.


The Pelosi Vendetta Part 1

   Pardon the rather high drama caption here. But this is why I have connected this Gallery of articles (the Rogues’ Gallery) with the notion of re-securing our political and legal systems. I refer you to the “resistance”: they have made a phenomenal decision about ethical issues. And it is that ALL forms of ethical behavior are no longer relevant to (their version) of pursuing The Greater Good.

The Pelosi Vendetta Part 2

Note: As promised from Part 1, we will now show how a prosecutor can be a real danger – if they are simply wandering about looking for a crime to prosecute. And have already decided who is going to get charged for it.