Do presidential boors deserve immunity?

My dad, bless his soul, was a lifelong acolate of the Arby's food chain. Why? Becase they alone provided horseradish as a side flavoring to their beef offerings.  

Horseradish.

And as such are affiliations born. For others, it may be ketchup. (I've heard that Donald Trump likes  excess ketchup on his beef, but precisely which - Heinz, Hunt's, wot? - we dunno). As a child of 1950s suburbania I personally appove of Chef Boy-Ar-Dee raviole in the can, even against authentic Italian food in Italy -- Venu de Veusvio chicken in Italy (I did that!), BUT I am against tossing of food against the wall. That's just bad manners.

So, that brings us against the bad manners of a USA chief executive?

The proposition of "immunity" in clearly criminal cases is absurd, almost comedic on it's face, albeit evil in its consequences. 

This proposition is well and truly ancient history - it was didsputed and won against King John in Anglo-American law by the proclamation of the Magna Carta in 1215.  The existance of the "Supreme Court" in American law is founded on the Magna Carta as transliterated from Briitsh to American contract law per the American constitution. Under the US Constitution of 1789, Presidents are executive administrators, not kings. Thier proclamations and exeutive orders are subject to objection and contravention by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. (For that matter, even kings are not kings over an independent people per the Carta, e.g., in 1649, King Charles was executed by parliament for treason against his own subjects - the English people - talk about a precedent against immunity!).

The "review" of executive immunity by the SCOTUS is, on it's face, an antti-revolutionary (and anti-American) act and is, in effect, tossing spaghetti against the wall.

current-events #immunity #trump #politics #SCOTUS #law #precedent #fascism

WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE



Belgiium wakes up to it's troubled past / BBC News

"White superiority" was one of the founding principles of English capitalism and colonialism, and was a guiding ethos (rule) of the British East India Company, which of course became the British Empire, which itself was the largest empire the world has ever known. The results can be seen across the globe. Obviously, not everybody bought the schitct, including many American colonists and especially the India Indians. The last expressions of nasceant Indian capitalism were ruthlessly crushed by military repression and planned famines, not to mention the partition. See "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling (1899).

Hand and glove with this capitalist ethos came the strategy of "divide and conquer", which caught on and held in the American Southern states.  Bear in mind that a solid third of American colonists wanted to remain under monarchial-feudal rule (requiring segretation to continue slave ownership) even during the American Revolution.

But even today, the stratergy continues. "In the early 1930s, Belgium introduced a permanent division of the population by classifying Rwandans into three ethnic (ethno-racial) groups, with the Hutu representing about 84% of the population, the Tutsi about 15%, and the Twa about 1%". The result was the Rwanda massacre. And here we have again, persons (the bow tie Fox-Swanson mouthpiece, Majory Greene, et al) calling for the same divide-and-rule here in the States. 

It ain't gonna work: it has run out of gas, it's sputtering and headed for the side of the road, but that doesn't mean it won't cause a massive car crash as it heads for the ditch of history.

#whitesuperiority #aparthied #segretation

current-events

TRUMP OWES CERTAIN RUSSIANS A SHIT-TON OF MONIES

It wasn't supposed to be this way ...


When I was a lad, I lived in a place that had a tire swing across the creek and a dairy next door that delivered warm milk every morning in glass bottles. I had a smart, faithful dog and I learned to swim in the town pool. There was a Fosters Freeze up the road and I thought that life would always be like this.

When I was in junior high, after I gave a verbal book report on Orwell's "1984", my teacher pulled me aside and said, "Kid, we measured you and you have an IQ of 147, so we're going to teach you how to think." I had no idea what he was talking about, but I did like taking tests because I was good at it, and I thought they were fun. Also, I was fast, and I enjoyed putting down my pencil at the end and sitting back and watching everyone else as they struggled.

Later, when I was in college, they told me they were trying to get me to think "critically". The Vietnam War was raging at the time and people were pissed off and marching in the streets, so I tried to think critically. Turns out, when you thought about it critically, Vietnam was bollocks and Nixon was a crook.

I am of a generation that was supposed to be smarter than the last; we had the best education on the planet, the best food, and the tailfins of our cars were higher and prouder than anybody else's and we had NATO, too.

Apparently, none of that mattered. One of my "critically thinking" classmates became an advisor to the White House and what a shit he was (I'm looking at you, Paul Wolfowitz). Now we have a new crook in the White House; Afghanistan is still going strong after ten years and Russian spies (when they're  not assassinating reporters) are advising Republicans in full public view.

You don't have even have to have an IQ to figure this shit out.

It's a long way from the tire swing, and this shit stinks.

   


#futurism #goals #wiseguy #education #current-events