The Cosby trial: My thoughts

OK. So here’s my take on the Cosby trial. After some thought and some research, I feel that the whole thing was a witch hunt by a prosecutor looking to get reelected. Here in this post I’m going to talk about the things that I found out about the case and why I feel the way that I do. OK, let’s get this show on the road.

The Evidence


via boston globe

When they did speak of the “crime” they referenced Cosby’s testimony from a civil case that he testified at (which was settled and closed for an undisclosed amount in 2006). Now, this crime had happened orignally in 2004, and memories degrade and people forget. The victim didn’t report it until the year after it happened, so her recollection of what happened may have not been accurate either. Cosby’s recollection of events may have not been accorate for that matter either.

That was it for the evidence. Just testimony. No hard evidence. One witness, and testimony.

The time factor

Why did she wait so long to report the crime? Why did the prosecutor wait so long to reopen the investagation into Cosby? Simple there was no evidence. The case went cold for the Police. If there was this case would already be closed, and went to court. It would be history.

Witch Hunt

This whole case is a witch hunt by a prosecutor attempting to carry out on a campiengn promise so that he can get reelected. There is no evidence, even he knows that. But he wasted tax payer money, court time, and state resources to take the case to court anyway. Any attourney could see that this case wouldn’t hold water in court. The only reason why that it does hold in court is because of the political and social climate in today’s society.

Quite frankly, if I was on the jury, I would have never have voted to convict Cosby because there was no physical evidence, and the testimony provided of the actual crime was suspect itself because the memories wasn’t “fresh” so to speak. Moreover, it sounds like Democrat Control is needed in this case more than anything. The Prosecutor sounds corrupt like a Democrat.



Seriously? They’re going to go there? I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s not going to happen. Even if the people supporting California ceding from the United States get the issue of ceding onto a ballot for vote this coming March, they face insurmountable odds. Let’s talk about them, shall we?

The Signatures

Yes California and their supporters must gain 400,000 signatures to get calexit on the ballot for the voters to vote on. The last attempt that was made by calexit failed miserably. If they do manage to get the required amount of signatures, it will be on the ballot in 2018.

Option 1

Depending on what route they take (they listed 2 on their website) the obstacles are different. Let’s start with option 1 which I took from their website:

A member of the California federal delegation to Washington would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate. If the Amendment passed it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the “consent of the states” requirement in Texas v. White). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted.

OK, so we start with:


An amendment to the Constitution will be required. For that it must gain 2/3 of the votes in the House, and then 2/3 in the Senate. Seeing that both the Senate and the House of Representatives are controlled by the Republicans (will be referred to later as GOP), they won’t go for the idea.


image via

Why? Because they understand that if California leaves the union, it would disrupt military operations, as well as business because many of the sea ports in the United States is there. Also, what about the Americans that don’t want to move, but remain in America. Quite honestly, I believe that the Yes California and their supporters are in the minority.

Now if by chance the measure does pass the GOP controlled congress, this Happens:

The States

Now the measure must go to the rest of the states to be approved. The measure must be approved by 38 of the 50 states. Seeing that the majority of the country is conservative, it probably won’t pass. Especially by New York. There’s a high probability that California ceding would cause a monumental crash of the stock market here, and impact stock markets around the world. In other words, it would hurt everyone.

Option 2

OK, now on to option two, this I have also taken from Yes California’s website:

California could call for a convention of the states (which is currently being organized to tackle other constitutional amendments as we speak) and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted.

OK, so this one has a

Convention of states

The convention of states requires at least 34 of the 50 state legislatures to submit applications to congress for the same reason to ratify a convention of states. Then once ratified, the states select their representatives to attend the convention. As mentioned above, at least 2/3 of the delegates must approve. If approved it will go to the:

State Legislatures

Once approved at the convention it goes to the state legislatures across the United States for approval. Now, many of the states won’t go for the same reasons that I gave for option 1.

In Conclusion

This just won’t work. California wouldn’t be allowed to cede from the United States. In my opinion, I say let them cede. Then make a law ordering all liberals and Democrats to move to the new Country of California.

With that said, I wonder if they know that if they cede, the United States will not have to protect them any further with our military. Also, I imagine many companies would move out of the state, because if Donald Trump is still in office, he’ll impose very high tariffs on them because they will be considered a foreign nation. Also, there will be no funding from the United States federal government or Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid…

Liberals aren’t very smart, are they?

Cat Decalwing Bill Finally Gets Hearing


I just got an email from one of my state Senators that a bill that makes cat declawing illeagal in the State of Hawaii is being heard next month!  I guess that all my letter writing paid off.  I submitted testimony via the state website, now all Ihave to do is wait for the hearing next month.  Writing that “paper” in favor of the bill was like writing a paper for one of my classes.  I just hope that the bill passes so that Hawaii can lead the rest of the nation to making the declawing of domesticated cats illeagal.  I even wrote to President Obama about making a federal law, but got a letter from him saying that “animal rights are important, but I’m not going to do anything about it”.  Hrmnph, it just figures.

For those of you that are interested or live in Hawaii, the bill number is HB466, and will have a second hearing on 02-Feb-2015 at 1400 HRS, HST.  For us cat lovers this bill is very important, I do hope that this passes and becomes law.  Not only is it for the cats, but all Americans.  The rest of the world believe that we’re barbarians, this will show that we care about animals, and we’re not as barbaric as everyone thinks.

Vagrant Problems in Hawaii & Democrats


The controversial problem here in Hawaii is what to do about all the homeless people (vagrants) in the state.  Our weather and the programs in place to help the homeless make this an ideal place for homeless to come from around the country.  In fact there has been speculation by the State Government that other states are flying their homeless here because of the weather and the social programs already in place (it’s less expensive for the state that the homeless person is from as well).

A pilot program that had been in place to fly the homeless home that had come from other states was killed in the local Senate and House of Representatives.  The plan was to set aside $100,000 from the fiscal budget to fly those implanted vagrants back to where they came from.  It would be more fiscally responsible to fly them home than to pour even more money into the system that cares for the homeless.  That, and I’m sure that they would love to go home, to family and loved ones whom may not be able to afford to pay for the homeless person to go back home.  As I said previously, this program was killed.  Everyone talks about wanting to help them…  Help them get home.

Then there was the law that the City Council had put into place making it illegal for people to block the sidewalks, all that did was cause protest by the so called protesting group at Thomas Square Park.  Because of whatever reason they had (IMO, it doesn’t matter what the reason was, the law was actually helping the neighborhood pedestrians with walking on the sidewalk), they had repealed the law (SMH).

Then in Waikiki, the tourist hub of the island, to try to combat the problems of the vagrants making the area look bad and homeless from harassing the tourists here; they closed parks at night, banned lean-tos and tents in public places.  The part that gets me is the punishment for breaking those laws.  Prison time and fines?  In prison, they spend a month at the most, then go back to being homeless and lurking/trespassing/etc.  The fine?  They’re homeless with no job, and can’t pay the ticket anyway.  It just makes no sense.  Normal punishment won’t work in these situations.

I’ve seen many times that the state government’s answer to the problem of homelessness is to construct more affordable housing on the island.  My response to that is, “Hello!  They have no jobs, can get no jobs, therefore have no money!  That and $350,000 for a studio isn’t affordable.  Most people making minimum wage can’t even afford to pay the mortgage.”

Then there’s Tom Brower a lawmaker here in Hawaii damaging private property to stop the homeless from taking the carts and using them to cart around their belongings.  Those carts are the property of the store, and cost thousands per cart, the more that goes missing without being returned drives up costs to the store, and in turn, the store passes that cost on to the consumer (SMH, DEMOCRATS).

Then there’s the Hawaii Interagency Council on Homelessness (HICH) was established in July 2011 through executive order by Gov. Neil Abercrombie (A Democrat).  They haven’t done anything as of this post, the homeless problem has only gotten worse.  They’ve taken no real action to lower the amount of homeless people here, if they have, it’s not enough (Sad).  A waste of tax-payer dollars.

This year during the elections for the seats in Washington, DC, the Governor’s seat, and locally only four candidates has made the homeless problem as key point in their election campaigns.  Two of them are Jeff Davis (Libertarian) and Duke Aiona (Republican).   Aiona says that he’ll work with the Hawaii National Guard to implement plans to help the homeless veterans in the state.  For the non-veterans, he wants to set up a Homeless court that will allow the homeless to get of the streets immediately.   Two congressional candidates have ideas as well, but it supports the building of more affordable housing.  Useless (see my comments above).

It takes a non-Democrat to think outside the box.  Here in Hawaii, we are stuck in a rut when it comes to many issues like this one.  It’s time that we elect people into office that has different values than the Democrats.  They’ve held power here in Hawaii for as long as I can remember.  They’re hypocrites, war-mongers, and busy bodies who want to solve everyone else’s problems before our own.  President Obama has shown that in his administration.  He was also slow to respond to the riots happening in Ferguson, Missouri as well.

I urge those in Hawaii to vote for someone else other than a Democrat this election.  It’s time for a true change here in Hawaii, and I don’t mean the Affordable Healthcare Act either.  If you want the links for the places that I got the information for in this post, I have them below.  Thanks for reading. 🙂

Regulating the beach?

Image courtesy of Liz Noffsinger / stockimages

Image courtesy of Liz Noffsinger / stockimages

I live on an island, we’re surrounded by beaches and the ocean.  Yet, there are parties that want to restrict the use of the ocean and certain beaches to those who paddle board.  Of course both sides are fighting for what they want.  I personally don’t like the beach due to the sand and very unsanitary conditions (IMO).  I’ve seen the reactions on the news from both sides, and I’ve decided to look further into this.


Image Courtesy of Google | Author’s Note: This isn’t Ala Moana Lagoon.

This is not the first time that people have asked for regulation of the waters.  In 2010, people had asked that the regulation of the use of the waters in the Ala Moana Lagoon, due to just about the same reasons that are being presented presently.   They reached an agreement to separate the waters with buoys so that everyone could use the ocean at the beach at the same time.

I understand the view point of the swimmers.  Having so many paddle boards, surfboards, etc. out in the water in the same area as swimmers is quite dangerous.  Especially the paddle boarders, not only do they have the board in the water, they also have the paddle to help propel them and steer.  Someone could be hit by either of those items.  From what it sounds like to me, is that the popularity of paddle boarding is increasing, therefore so does the risk of someone being hurt.  Seeing that this state gets the majority of it’s money from tourism, I feel that there should be regulation due to keeping our visitors safe and coming back here for vacations.

Buoys can’t be considered at Ala Moana Beach or at Waikiki Beach, it’ll mar things for our visitors (It’ll look really ugly, isn’t it bad enough that we have the rail system going up as well?).  Regulating when and where the  Paddle boarders can use the beach seems like the only reasonable answer.  Regulating swimmers at these beaches aren’t an option due to our reliance on on tourism.  If I was visiting here, I wouldn’t want to see buoys at the beaches or be told that I can’t swim at the beach because today only the paddle boarders are allowed to use the water.

On the other hand, I do understand the side of the paddle boarders as well, though.  It’s not fair to them that only they be regulated.  But they are in the minority.  As I remember Spock saying in one of the movies:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few.

Yes, regulation or setting up a beach just for paddle board users would be best in my opinion.  While I do feel that the beaches are there for everyone to use, safety is an important factor as well is the success of our visitor industry.  I just wish that everyone could just be civil about it.  It’s small things like this that make the biggest messes, IMO.  Anyhow, this is my take on this subject.  Thanks for reading. 🙂

Serial Bank Robbers & Their Families


A couple of days ago, the Honolulu Police Department (HPD), apprehended the suspects they say are responsible for the string of bank robberies that took place on the island. While that’s good news in my opinion, the more disturbing news is that thier family members are being are in the process of being evicted from state subsidized housing in Halawa. Is punishing their families for what they did is correct? Only one of the suspects were listed on the lease, and while I can understand he’s living there and suspected of crimes, he hasn’t been convicted yet.

So, that leaves the question of the ethics of the evictions. I do understand the housing is tax payer funded and there is strict rules, why punish the entire family for what one person has done? As I write this, there are 3 families that have their futures up in the air and uncertain. The other 2 suspects were being hid there by their families, while I can understand that’s illegal, and stupid, the ethics of eviction is still in question.

After giving this a lot of thought, I take the side of the authorities. I feel that the families knew that the suspects were wanted for commuting crimes, but allowed them to stay with them. But the one that lived there? I have the feeling that his father knew. Should they be evicted? Yes.

Many will feel differently for many different reasons, but if you think about it logically, most parents will protect thier child no matter how old they are, or what they did. Its maternal instinct, and very common. That and when one is young, scared, and don’t know what to do, where do they run? They run to thier parents/families for help. So, did they know yes, more than likely. And even if they didn’t, they were allowed to stay there. If the authorities allow them to stay, in the future, this will happen again. And we’d be funding public housing for criminals, funding the prison system is enough. The law abiding citizens shouldn’t be forced to help house criminals on the outside.

In any case, those are my thoughts on this subject. Thanks for reading. 🙂

Cat Leash Law?

Image courtesy of Vlado /

Image courtesy of Vlado /

A rural county in Kentucky has just adopted a new law of having all animals including cats on leashes if off of the owner’s property.  When first reading the article, I was like what the???  Apparently, the county of Oldham has the problem with too many cats wondering around digging up people’s gardens and using them as litter boxes.  Personally, the thought of walking a cat in a harness is both comical and cute all at the same time.

With all the farms in the area that uses cats as for mice deterrent and extermination, many people have cats running around outdoors during the day in Oldham.  From watching the animal rescue shows I know that cats are very hard to catch because of their agility.  I don’t even know why they made the law.  The article that I got this from states it’s a reminder to cat owners to be responsible for their cats.  Then why not ask them to do so other than introduce and adapt a ridiculous piece of legislation?

If you’re interested in this article, the link is below:

Thanks for reading! 😀

Hobby Lobby, Activists, Obama, & America


This is something that has been all over the news networks lately.  The Hobby Lobby case.  Everyone has a perspective on this case, so I think that I’ll voice my thoughts on it today.  First, lets start at the root of all of this discussion.  The Constitution of the United States.  The Bill of Rights states in the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As with anything written, it could be viewed in a number of ways.  I’m going to take this from a literal point of view.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I feel that from the literal point of view that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in this perspective.  Corporations are just an entity, but it is run by human beings.  Human beings with beliefs.  One of the core beliefs that America was founded on was the freedom of religion.  Some of the first immigrants to America came here from England to escape religious persecution.  Many people in today’s age seem to forget that.  Yes, I know times have changed, but we must not forget what this country stands for, why our forefathers founded this country, and why the constitution was written to begin with.

Don’t get me wrong, I do feel that women do have the right to use contraceptive, and have the right to chose to have children or not.  But, I do feel that it’s selfish of people to thing that just because they want it, healthcare should be made to cover it regardless of what principles or religious beliefs another person may have on the subject.  Healthcare costs for everyone went up so that just about everything a woman needs medically would be covered by healthcare insurance.  No, I don’t feel the same way as others feel that it’s the insurance carrier’s fault that premiums went up.  It would have not gone up to begin with if it wasn’t for the Obama Care law.  It’s all cause and effect.  I could see all this coming when Obama had brought up the Affordable Care Act.  I knew that costs of health care would go up for everyone, it’s simple economics.  I also saw people losing coverage at work (while this hasn’t happened in as of a large scale as I thought it would, it has in a smaller scale).

Obama has been ramming new programs and legislature down the throat of congress using the power of the executive office.  I feel that this makes our country more like a dictatorship than a democracy. I don’t know what Obama is going to do next, but it’s scary to think of all the things that could happen next because of recent events and the legalization of the Affordable Care Act.

I only have one thing to say about all of this:

It isn’t my fault, I didn’t vote for any of the people in office in Washington.

As always, I only state my perspective on this subject, I’m not here to start a flame war, or to saw who’s right or wrong.  These are my thoughts.  Anyhow, my rant is done.  Thanks for reading! 🙂

Declawing of Cats


After doing some research I’ve learned that declawing cats actually harms them.  Sure it may save your furniture and wood floor, but to harm and innocent cat to protect your valuables is horrendous.  If you don’t want your property damaged like that, don’t have a cat.  Anyhow, there is proof that declawing domestic cats is harmful to them because of the pain that they experience post op, even after they “heal” from the surgery.

Some negative effects of declawing

Medical drawbacks to declawing include pain in the paw, infection, tissue necrosis (tissue death), lameness, and back pain. Removing claws changes the way a cat’s foot meets the ground and can cause pain similar to wearing an uncomfortable pair of shoes. There can also be a regrowth of improperly removed claws, nerve damage, and bone spurs.

For several days after surgery, shredded newspaper is typically used in the litter box to prevent litter from irritating declawed feet. This unfamiliar litter substitute, accompanied by pain when scratching in the box, may lead cats to stop using the litter box. Some cats may become biters because they no longer have their claws for defense.

From the Humane Society of The United States

The Paw Project seeks to end such cruelty.  In fact many vets are against declawing cats, it partially removes part of their digit so that they won’t grow claws anymore.  It is a senseless mutilation.    Parts of Europe have already outlawed declawing of cats, and I hope that the United States would follow suit.  Instead of helping others outside the country, we should focus on things like this.  We have our own problems to solve.

I ask that my readers write their legislators in Washington, DC and ask them to pass laws making the declawing of cats illegal. To make things easier, there’s web forms for each legislator for sending mail.  Below I have the official websites where you can send your legislators messages.  The more people that write to them about this, the more they are likely to take action.  I have already written my legislators both locally and in Washington, DC.  I even sent a message to President Obama, although I doubt he’ll do anything.  The links are below:

If you’re interested in reading more, I have included the links below for your information.  🙂

I urge everyone to take action and tell your friends and family.  As I said above, the more people write, the more likely that the government will take action.  I thank all of you for your efforts and reading this entry.