Arrest of the Golden State Killer

 Although they now have proof beyond doubt as to who the Golden State Killer is, police are tight-lipped about their method of tracking him (through one of the killer’s relative's DNA), and they are not saying which genealogy lab gave them their initial lead. These records are, no doubt, often inadvertently, made public by relatives who, through a common effort, are trying to track their ancestry, and openly discuss their efforts on Internet forums.  One can only imagine the hullabaloo forthcoming, especially from the DNA genealogy labs.  They make their living by tracking ancestry for their customers through the use of DNA.

However, I cannot see the police's method of obtaining their lead through use of a relative's DNA having a gigantic impact on the genealogy labs. A wanted killer is not likely to submit his DNA to them anyway.  However, if you have black sheep on the lam in your family, you might give the police a lead through your own DNA while you are trying to track your ancestry.  As for me, if I have a relative on the lam, I say lock him/her up. Giving the police a lead through my DNA submitted to a genealogy lab would not deter me from using such methods to track my ancestry. Anyway,  I already know who my relatives are back to the mid-1800s, and farther back than that does not really interest me.

When all is said and done, the police finally have their man, and his prosecution is undoubtedly going to cause some police procedural controversies far and wide.  James DeAngelo, the alleged Golden State Killer, is a former cop, a fact that investigators long suspected by his ability to cover up evidence, and by other clues.  He obviously knew all about investigative methods.  He never left fingerprints or other available evidence that he (at the time) knew of, when he began his crime spree; At the beginning of his serial rapes and murders, DNA was not yet available for use by the police―and he left plenty of it at the early crime scenes.

DeAngelo was tracked down by the discovery of DNA from a relative who sent it to a yet un-named genealogy lab. There is going to be a big argument in this trial as to whether DNA from a genealogy business is public information, and perhaps many other unprecedented issues are going to arise. If a relative publishes his/her information on a public forum used by a group of related people, I cannot see a problem.  It seems like it would be similar to eavesdropping a conversation, or finding an incriminating note on the Internet or in the dumpster. Hearsay information from eavesdropping might not be admissible evidence; it might be judged to be hearsay, but such information taken from a public Internet forum between relatives exchanging information might be different.

Illegally-obtained evidence can get the most dangerous criminals off the hook, and since this case is California-based, anything can happen.  A conviction is bound to be appealed under the Fourth Amendment.  The arrest and most of the crimes took place within the jurisdiction of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, the worst possible place to get justice.  This case could drag out far beyond 72-year-old, James De Angelo’s, remaining, expected life span, and the grim reaper might cheat society out of his paying the supreme penalty.  However, the proceedings should at least keep him in plenty of misery for the rest of his life.

Gaslighting and Ad Hominem Argument

The charge of "racism" in the U.S. has become a shelter of obfuscation for those who cannot make a logical argument to support their position of supporting degenerate social customs. It is another form of gaslighting and ad hominem argument to try to discredit the opponents of encroaching socialism and fifth-column treason;. It is effective only for those who are amenable to demagoguery; those of lower intellect, or totally lacking thereof. In intellectual authority, those who practice it are barely one notch higher than their dupes..

Why Trump Should Not Meet With Robert Mueller

Probably at least 90% of all government cases against subjects under federal investigation are prosecuted AFTER SELF INCRIMINATION by the person interrogated (interviewed?).   In such interviews, I suppose there is no Miranda Warning, but nevertheless, a person can be prosecuted based on statements, even unworn ones, by investigators.  Sometimes transcripts of such "interviews " deviate grossly from the verbatim statements actually made by both the interrogator and the target of the investigation.  When the interrogator tells the target that an interview will not be recorded, that should sent up a huge, red flag.  Unrecorded "records" give them more leeway to write the transcript of an interview anyway they want, since only a secretary is responsible for getting it right (but it then can be "edited" by the interrogator to say what he wants it to say). Federal investigators have no more scruples than any other investigator, and since the comprehensive corrupting influences of Obama, they should be viewed with even more circumspect. Like the corrupt media, they can easily use the power of the written word (designed to their needs) to gain advantage. With all the intrigue swirling around the harassment of President Trump and the demoncrat maniacal passion to defrock him,  their credibility is about as low as the mainstream media, and that depth rivals the whale excrement at the bottom of Challenger Deep.

Such interrogation and recording methods of investigators can also be utilized to exonerate someone they want to, especially political confederates with known ties. An example is James Comey's farcical "investigation" of Hillary's multiple breaches of national security, and her destruction of 32,000 emails (which the Russians and every spy in the world probably lifted off the cloud storage system--where they can never be deleted. Russians have been prosecuting spies, using evidence lifted from Hillary's computers).  The decision to exonerate Hillary was reportedly already written up before Comey started his investigation of her; and we assume Bill Clinton was assured of that fact at the "Tarmac Meeting" with Loretta Lynch, then Attorney General, and at that time holding prosecutorial discretion--discretion no doubt guided by her boss,  Obama.

 Comey made a ridiculous effort at CYA  by creating a false element to the path of prosecuting a National security breach by saying Hillary "did not intend"  to break the law.  Intent is totally irrelevant in National security cases,and that is why we have security clearances (which Hillary illegally never had). Comey himself said that she was unqualified to get a security clearance, supposedly for her history of mishandling national security information.

Robert Mueller is a demoncrat with former ties to Hilary Clinton and should have recused himself from any investigation (inquiry?) long ago for his conflicts of interest.  Moreover, the scope of his investigation has been violated and digressed into totally extraneous areas, in violation of the limits of his commission.

Censorship and the Drift Backward Toward a Return to Theocracy

Did you ever read an unabridged edition of Don Quixote?  In the mid-pages we read a lengthy report by "his official censor," explaining why he let this novel pass muster. They did not call them editors or moderators back in those days.  It was the age of the Inquisition and the Church had to approve all published material, even fictional novels, to prevent anti-Government propaganda.  Some say Don Quixote is actually the first novel.  They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but the novel is a vehicle that can get through the political censorship storm with subtle truth that is obvious to the discerning eye. The discerning eye is one that can "read between the lines."

The theocratic Holy Roman Empire  ruled Europe from the end of the Roman Empire in the late 15th century until the French Revolution. Bush 43 gave a return to theocracy a big boost by allowing so-called "faith-based" schools to receive Government aid,  just like public schools.

Historically then, writers have always sought to find ways to get around censorship.  Before Quixote, they did it in more strained ways.  Shakespeare protected his neck by telling tales of kings and nobles that lived two hundred years earlier.  Some say that certain Mother Goose Rhymes were thinly disguised satire of the nobility in England. Aesops' Fables told stories of folly meant to reflect evil and power abuse back in the BCE.  Jesus did it with "parables."

 After a final stormy year of Government service in the old INS branch of the DHS, I decided to retire.  Upon being notified of my intention to retire, my supervisory office in Nogales, AZ,    immediately mailed me the old "non disclosure" Form 189, warning me that if I published anything derived from my government knowledge and experiences, I could have all the royalties diverted to the Government.  There were also not-so-subtle hints of punishment for divulging classified information.  My bosses in Arizona knew that I had obtained a degree in creative writing while studying part-time as a Border Patrol Agent in El Paso.  I planned to write mostly fiction, but that would not have allayed the concerns of my bosses in Nogales, AZ, some fifty miles from my duty station in Sasabe.  I knew that if I had refused to sign the non-disclosure form, they could have denied my application to retire.  So try and stop me, I said inwardly, by signing the non-disclosure form.  I then stuck a smiley face on it with a winking eye.   I still have a copy of the form and the stick-note with the smiley face and winking eye. 

They say that fact is stranger than fiction, but fiction has historically made a darn good vehicle to convey truth for discerning readers.  "Discerning," in this sense, to quote another old cliche, means an ability to read between the lines. 

I think I did some good as a troublemaker who had read the law and tried to enforce it, contrary to the agency as a whole , which has been grossly guilty of dereliction of duty, almost since its inception in 1924. I did my best to highlight this miserable policy that allowed our land to become flooded with illegal aliens--by sometimes demanding a passport as proof of U.S. citizenship--required by law.  I frequently violated policy by applying the law as written at the sacrifice of any hopes of advancing in the bureaucracy, of which I had had none since my earliest years in the agency. I defied illegal policy often at the risk of getting phony criminal charges trumped on me, which I once did, but finally, with great sacrifice, I finally everything dismissed. 

One change that I feel that I was instrumental in was in forcing the Government to require a passport for all applicants for admission to the U.S. at land ports of entry.  That law had been ignored for decades on the Mexican, and other, land borders. It is found in 8 CFR 235.1, and other parts of Federal Law. The disaster of 9-11-01 came seven years after I retired, but I had always known it was coming, but I expected it actually to be much worse. Bush 43's open border policies to coincide with the NAFTA agreement made such a catastrophe inevitable.  And we still have not secured out borders enough to keep out terrorists. Trump is at loggerheads with the Democrats who see illegal immigration as a way to increase their political strength, since most third world immigrants become Democrats if they legalize. 

The Name Says it All

Democrats have begun to call El Pao politician Beto O'Rourke "Kennedy-esque."  I guess they think it is cool to conjure up the image of one of America's most notorious crime families, also called the "Irish Mafia," originally led by Godfather Joseph Kennedy Sr.  The more things change in American politics, the more they remain the same.  On the border, our government looks more and more like Mexico, the source of most of our new immigrants. They have become the target of most pandering and demagoguery by establishment politicians. Even Trump seems to belatedly realize this. There are no such things as "political refugees" because they bring their problems with them, along with their values--and they infect the rest of us as we assimilate to THEIR standards. That's what happens when we do not control immigration and start letting it control us.

The mob seems to prosper more when they control politics without running for office.  When that happens, the body count of the more prominent among them starts rising. Al Capone was one of the most powerful politicians of his time, but he was wise enough to not run for office and was content to pull the puppet strings from behind the scenes. 

Benita Alexander: Professional Duper Who Was Duped in the Most Outrageous Way

I once heard that con artists can victimize almost anyone—even another con artist!  That fact led me to ruminate about the story of Benita Alexander.

Benita Alexander used to be a television producer and investigative reporter for one of the big American con artist corporations: NBC.  Example: they gave a lateral arabesque-type  “promotion” to Brian Williams to get him out of the mainstream eye.  Even the face of CBS' disgraced Dan Rather is still seen on certain oblivious channels, but such good fortune does not appear in the works for Benita.

The mainstream media in recent years have abandoned  all pretenses of being fair and balanced; they have jumped onto the bandwagon of the liberal/progressive fantasy joy ride that frequently betrays them for what they are: propagandists for the national left-wing political movement.  Hollywood is part of it. They are unified in their effort to vilify President Trump, and they fanatically believe they can destroy him for trouncing their Pygmalion airhead, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 general election. 

A couple of years ago Benita Alexander believed that she was going to wed the most famous doctor in the world, that her wedding would be presided over by Pope Francis, that every major world foreign leader would be at her wedding.  However, she argued with her fiance about having Vladimir Putin at her wedding; she was shrewd enough to know that Putin would be anathema to her fantasy view of the world--and that of her professional associates--why the Pope might be offended.  However, her husband insisted that Putin was so powerful that it would only be proper to include him among the world leaders who would attend their wedding.

 When the bubble finally burst, NBC managers tried to distance themselves as far as possible from her.

Benita Alexander had fallen from the highest lofts of Democratic-type fantasy to the level of doormat in the field of matching wits with real con artists. NBC will not tell her story because she has become the epitome of what normal people hate about the media; those within mostly enjoy the role of the dupers, not the dupes.

Instead of her story being highlighted on NBC, her story is now being told on the Investigative Discovery Channel, and if blatant scandal follows its usual course, we can soon expect a book that  she hopes to make her rich and famous and fill in the void left by the international con artist, Paolo Macchiarini; Macchiarini, whom she once thought to be the knight in shining armor that would lift her to the pinnacle of world fame.

It does make a good scam-type of crime story for ID, but it does nothing to improve the image of Benita Alexander, a career duper for NBC who got duped in the most outrageous fashion.  As much as NBC would like to forget Benita Alexander, she will always be associated in name and by the schematic flaws of the profession.

 Like most megalomaniacs in the fantasy world of modern, mainstream media (which is now synonymous with the Democrat Party), Benita Alexander believes that hope springs eternal for fame and fortune. She decided to revert to playing the poor, pitiful victim in the ID production of her story. There she is playing the role of the underdog in hopes that this new cocoon of a scheme will spawn an eventual Cinderella who will someday rise up from her eponymous ashes and marry the Prince--at least figuratively; all that if the book becomes a best seller. For me, it would be just another "best seller" puffed by the NYT that I will have to pass up because I see scam stories in the news every day.  What makes this story worthy of this essay is because it falls into the category of poetic justice.

Will Evangelicals save the Trump presidency in 2020?

Trump fantasizes that the Evangelicals may save his presidency in 2020, but it will not go down that way.

Point Source:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/01/26/evangelicals_provide_political_cover_for_trump_on_daca_136111.html?utm_campaign=notifications&utm_medium=push-notifications&utm_source=new_content

Congressional advocates of every amnesty claimed that theirs was the last, and "Now we control the border."  Reagan's 1986 IRCA meant Immigration REFORM and CONTROL Act. We had two more clean-up amnesties since then [245(i) and Extension of 245(i)].  The majority of Congressmen in both parties are the rogue leaders of our rogue nation that exploits cheap labor.They forget that all those illegally imported third world stoop laborers—and handmaids that feminists exploit—want socialism (which they get a taste of with social welfare programs they exploit while still illegal)--and the Democrats promise it as a way of life, after legalization. 

The gestation from illegal immigrant to Democrat voter is about 15-20 years.   The end of the Republican Party likely will come whenever Trump leaves office.  The Democrats thought it came with the election of Obama, but it rose for one last gasp in 2016.  However, Trump's lies and broken promises appear to be the GOP's political epitaph. The GOP's only hope for revival and survival is to oust Trump in the 2020 primary with an honest, patriotic candidate like Trey Gowdy or Ted Cruz.  No matter who the GOP runs, he’ll be labeled the devil incarnate and a racist by the Democrat/Hollywood corrupt media alliance, and he has to be willing to take on more libel and slander than Andrew and Rachel Jackson.