THE ABSURD TIMES — STILL

The Absurd Times iMPEACH

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on June 15, 2019

To: <czar.donic1>

THE ABSURD TIMES


Such a sweet ruling family

A few other thoughts first

By
Tsar Donic

Perhaps it would be better to call these Neanderthal Republicans (an electoral college majority still) as "Pro-Birth," rather than pro-life as they use the term. It does seem clear that once the child is born, they have no further concern for it as it then becomes a tax issue. Yet, so many of those opposed to higher taxes have no problem with the fact that so many of the "elite" pay no taxes while everyone else does.

One problem Biden has as a candidate is that the contemporary "base" of the party do not realize that many of his earlier votes come from a time when people still smoked in airplanes and so on. He does need to say that he has learned from his past mistakes and learned more since then. Perhaps then his votes for the Hyde amendment and for the "war" against Iraq (really a regime change idea) would be easier to shake off today. For similar reasons, Voters today are not brainwashed against "Socialism" as they were back then. It is a main reason that Bernie Sanders remains so popular today. In addition, many of his positions have not had to change – the country changed to his point of view.

Global warming: note that the issue of that or climate change is not allowed and mention on our media, yet weather reports are allowed to be accurate and show the disease of climate change. The underlying cause has to be inferred and etiology is not a strong point of Americans, especially those dedicated to Trump.

We talk of education. It is an obscure fact that one high school teacher was using Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD as required reading in an honors class is typical. Parents were outraged. After a few questions the reason became clear. It had nothing to do with Henry Ford (who built tanks in Nazi Germany). One popular chant in the fictional novel kept saying "Ford has a better idea" or something like that. No, one could only hope that was the issue. It has nothing to do with assembly line treatment of people, although that is what the school system had become modeled after. None of that was of interest or even understood by the PTA. The idea was "contraceptive belts". Why, after all, their own daughters were all virgins were they not? That is what they understood. He was forced to discontinue using the book. The next semester, he used a translation of Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann. No problem there. That is an illustration of why our educational system is still about 2 to 3 years behind those is Europe.

Fake news? For people so interested in the ideas of our founding founders, perhaps it would be wise to remember Thomas Jefferson who said "If I had to choose between one of the three branches of government and the Free press, I would easily choose the Free Press."

Not many people remember that, or have even been taught that, the Attorney General is a part of the Judicial Branch.

All of the compliants against the Trump children running the country like the Rothchilds are nothing compared to the attacks John F. Kennedy got for placing his brother as Attorney General Now I wonder why that is?

And now, I’m tired. I may send links or so from time to time, but this is just too difficult.

And now to Larry Tribe, law professor at Harvard and Obama’s mentor in Constitutional law:

Impeach Trump. But don’t necessarily try him in the Senate.


By Laurence H. Tribe
June 5
Laurence H. Tribe is the University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard and the coauthor, most recently, of "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment."
It is possible to argue that impeaching President Trump and removing him from office before the 2020 election would be unwise, even if he did cheat his way into office, and even if he is abusing the powers of that office to enrich himself, cover up his crimes and leave our national security vulnerable to repeated foreign attacks. Those who make this argument rest their case either on the proposition that impeachment would be dangerously divisive in a nation as politically broken as ours, or on the notion that it would be undemocratic to get rid of a president whose flaws were obvious before he was elected.
Rightly or wrongly — I think rightly — much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan) and more than a thirdof the nation’s voters disagree. They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.
That is my view, as well.
Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents. This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president — and would be wise to do so — if it appeared the Senate was dead-set against convicting him.
But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.
House Democrats call for impeachment proceedings against Trump
After the White House blocked numerous congressional subpoena requests, lawmakers have begun calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump. (Blair Guild, JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
Take, for instance, the 1974 investigation of President Richard M. Nixon when the House gave the president the opportunity to refute the charges against him either personally or through counsel and with additional fact witnesses. (Nixon chose to appear only through his attorney, James D. St. Clair.) Following its impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee drafted particularized findings less in the nature of accusations to be assessed by the Senate — which of course never weighed in, given Nixon’s resignation — than in the nature of determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.
It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.
The House, assuming an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate pre-committed to burying them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory "Sense of the House" resolution far stronger than a mere censure. The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication. (A House resolution finding the president "impeachable" but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a "Scarlet ‘I’ " that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)
The point would not be to take old-school House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset. Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.
By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter. It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him. And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.


Posted By Czar Donic to The Absurd Times at 6/15/2019 03:25:00 PM

Unsubscribe from new post emails for this blog.

Advertisements

iMPEACH

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on June 15, 2019

Trump Defends Use Of Translator On Trip To The UK

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on June 4, 2019

Gaza

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 30, 2019

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 27, 2019

THE ABSURD TIMES

Can you say Psychopath?

Freedom of Speech

By

Czar Donic

Yes, the first Amendment is under attack.

When the country was founded, Franklin was asked “What kind of government do we have?”

He replied “A Republic, if we can keep it.”

The first ten amendments were not in the original Constitution, but the governor of one state would not sign it unless he was promised these amendments. Jefferson kept that promise. Unusual, but not in those days. The framers were after all trying to insure what the Colonial power of the Kingdom had done to them under occupation.

One of the framers said words to the effect “If I had to choose between a free press and a Democracy, I’d choose the free press. Today, the press has pretty much been occupied by corporations, but the amendment still stands.

During the witch hunt of the McCarthy era, most of those under attack stook under the fifth Ammendment, the right not to testify against yourself. This is meant to make torture and forced confessions illegal.

One, however, stood behind the First Amendment: Pete Seeger, the folk singer, activist, and so on who also had a background in journalism. See, the first Amendment also guarantees freedom of assembly, the right to gather together for political and other purposes. So, may he did sing in front of some Socialist groups. He had a right to. He offered to sing the song to the House of Un-American Activities Committee, but they passed on it. He went free.

Many journalists, people such as John Pilger, an Australian journalist, I believe, publishes here because of the right to free speech. Otherwise, he would be sued. Our own prosecution of Assange is very dangerous and an attack on freedom of speech, not some espionage deal. And does anyone remember Lenny Bruce? A very popular and profitable radio personality, Dan Sorkin, whith whom I spoke on several occasions, left Chicago because of Mayor Daley’s attempts of censorship of his show, mainly playing any Lenny Bruce recordings. Not only would he be fired, but the engineer who put the recording on the turntable and played it for him would be fired. He left for San Francisco and loved it there. He went on to be popular there as well.

Anyway, it is not Assange who is being attacked here – it is the First Amendment. Here is an interview about that from what is left of free speech. I’d read it all, long as this edition is, but take your time with it. I am getting tired of this situation and publishing this does no good anyway. The only reason I continue from time to time is that I just can’t help it:

n an unprecedented move, the Justice Department has indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on 17 charges of violating the Espionage Act for his role in publishing U.S. classified military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents were leaked by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The Espionage Act of 1917 has never been used to prosecute a journalist or media outlet. The new charges come just over a month after British police forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he took asylum in 2012. Initially the Trump administration indicted Assange on a single count of helping Manning hack a government computer, but Assange faces up to 170 additional years in prison under the new charges—10 years for each count of violating the Espionage Act. We speak with Jennifer Robinson, an attorney for Julian Assange. “It is a grave threat to press freedom and should be cause for concern for journalists and publishers everywhere,” Robinson says.

The About and Abouter — Paul Duncan

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 23, 2019

The About and Abouter — Paul Duncan

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 23, 2019

The Absurd Times Gaza Again and Running for President.

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 7, 2019

Gaza Again and Running for President.

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 7, 2019

Venezuela and Ignorance

Posted in Uncategorized by @honestcharlie on May 2, 2019

THE ABSURD TIMES

Nixon: “We are all Keynesians.”

Venezuela and Ignorance

Or Fear and Loathing, May, 2019

By

Czar Donic

We have done a tremendous feat and keeping people as ignorant as they are. In fact, it is good business and good capitalism. So long as the people are unaware of what is being done to them, on their behalf, all is well with the wealthy and powerful and damn the rest of the world’s population.

What about “free and fair” elections in Venezuela? Is that what we have here? Is that why the improbably Donald Trump is there in the White House or the nearest golf course instead of Bernie Sanders? But that’s no going to get us anywhere. So we go back to Venezuela. The puppet we want to put in power got zero votes for President. Maduro over six million. Six million, just to be clear, is more than zero.

We talk a great deal, or hear a great deal from corporate media, about military action in the country and the psychopathic John Bolton and his crew complaining about not enough military strategy from the Generals. Times are strange when Generals make more sense than our civilian government, but that is the situation. After all, the final sane advisor in the Trump Administration was called “Mad Dog". That will give you an idea.

OK. So forget about military intervention. If we try to invade the country, we wind up with a situation than found in Viet Nam. Generals at least have a memory. We are not hearing a word about the vast forests down there. “Whet, you ask, what forest is in Venezuela?”

“The Goddamn Amazon forest, that’s what.”

“What? I thought that was down in Brazil and we own that now.”

What can you tell these people? What the hell do they learn about geography? Mark Twain once observed that “War is God’s way of teaching us geography," and it turn out he was right. There is far more forest available for Venezuela to launch Guerra-type action than was ever in Vietnam and how many lives that did one cost us?

Well, the truth is that it doesn’t matter. Our would be puppet, Guido, has promised to “privatize" the oil fields, in other words, make them available to corporations which, as we all know, have our best interests at heart. It is the same crowd that Castro kicked out of Cuba.

But the people are starving, I hear. Yes, but few mention why. We, the U.S. has launched an enormous blockade of the country, not allowing them to import the needed medical supplies nor food of any type. The only food approved has USA stamped on it and labeled as “Humanitarian." aid. Somehow, the United Nations still considers Morales as the ruler of the country. “But the International Community doesn’t," I hear.

Well, the so-called “International Community, as defined in our corporate press and news media, can be quite accurately defined as the United States and whatever other countries we can force to agree with us. With countries all over the world being taken over slowly by fascist interests, that community is growing and will continue to grow.

You may have heard, although it is only a slight possibility, that sympathetic citizens of this country, mostly women by the way, are currently holding the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington. The question, of course, becomes “why did the country leave the embassy, and the answer is that they cut ties with us some time ago over these crippling and inhumane sanctions. I’ll try to join them, although it is a very long car drive from here.

Another lie that spread was that Maduro was going to flee the country until the Russians stopped him. Hey, the Russians are not much better than us. They have no interest in having more oil on the market either.

A few other notes: Eliot Abrams in now running things for Trump. Now, the Late George Bush, ex-CIA Director, [yes, the same guy who promised never to expand Nato eastward
to fat old drunk
Yeltson] pardoned him, Eliot, for his part in helping ship arms to Iran and money to Honduras. This was illegally done to overthrow the government in Nicaragua. Ollie North, who testified under immunity, orchestrated the deal out of the Reagen White House basement. Ollie is now spokesman for the NTA but have a power struggle with wigged out Wayne.

Never mind. Here is some documentation on Venezuela and also on the hate campaign against Ilhan Omar, duly elected representative from Minnesota who, by the way, got more votes than any other representative elected this time (at last, I can’t think of an exception).

* * * *

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is claiming to have defeated a coup attempt launched by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly. On Tuesday morning, Guaidó appeared in an online video standing among heavily armed soldiers, calling for the military to back what he called the “final phase” of an effort to topple Maduro’s government. Guiadó appeared alongside Leopoldo López, a longtime opposition leader, who was reportedly released from house arrest by renegade officers. Guaidó has been attempting to topple the Venezuelan government since January, when he declared himself to be Venezuela’s interim president. The Trump administration, as well as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and others, openly supported the coup attempt. Earlier today, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox Business that military action in Venezuela is possible, “if that’s what is required.” We speak to Miguel Tinker Salas, Venezuelan historian and professor at Pomona College.

%d bloggers like this: