Blanket Bans on People Are Asinine

Preface---
Never mind the fact that Article II, Section 2 enumerates ONLY TWO Executive Orders permitted under the United States Constitution.  The President may order Department Heads to submit reports on anything having to do with their respective departments, and may grant clemency/pardons to specified prisoners.  That's it.  No other Exec Orders are listed/described.  Put that aside...because We the People apparently have accepted the Fed Govt's analysis which states that other Orders are IMPLIED.  Some analysts have argued (to no avail) that the Constitution does not imply powers, but instead ENUMERATES them.  [We have, after all, a government of Enumerated Powers.]

So for decades & decades, we have allowed past & present Presidents essentially to issue decrees (like a King) that instead should be ideas for legislative bills submitted to Congress.  Never mind all that.  Trump isn't the only guilty party.
..............................................
The USA's Soft Fascism is hardening rapidly under this new King & his Administration.  The recent blanket ban is proof of that.  Here are a few of the results:
1.  at JFK Airport, some moron kicked & punched a Muslim woman who was dressed according to her faith, and then said, "Trump is here now; he's going to get rid of all of you!";
2.  a PhD candidate at Stanford, who had been visiting abroad, was detained upon return to the Land of the Free because the country visited was one of the "areas where we've had trouble" (the quote is from an Administration spokesman);
3.  other students with Green Cards attending other universities had similar experiences;
4.  Iraqis who helped save the lives of American soldiers, and thus were targeted in their own land, were denied entrance as refugees to the USA at the airport... because of Trump's "Executive Order".

So much for "extreme vetting".  With this Order, apparently there is no vetting.  There's only a blanket ban.

Pluralistic societies/countries, if they were to use Trump's reasoning, should ban all Americans from entrance to their lands... because some Americans are violent racists.  That's the same flawed logic.

Trump already has demonstrated that he should be impeached.  Keep in mind, the Impeachment process begins merely with an investigation by the House.  It may end there.  It's the Senate that has to vote for conviction (removal from office)...2/3rds of Senators must so vote...if the House votes to proceed.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Extreme Ignorance of the Don... and the Rigged Game

Let me state again at the outset:  I don't support Clinton, either.  In fact, there isn't a single candidate running this year that I would even consider supporting... not necessarily because of the individual, but rather because the entire System is rigged.  In the present Crony Capitalist atmosphere, it doesn't really matter at all in any significant way who gets into high office.  For that to matter, first the corruption must be changed by peaceful pressure from outside the Rigged Game.  People have been trying to change it from the inside for at least about 100 years...no luck.

Donald Trump can't be a serious candidate...not with the statements he has made for months now.  I'm beginning to suspect that his only function is to guarantee the coronation of Clinton.  Following are just a few of (supposedly) the Don's beliefs... which are extremely ill-informed.

1.  He stated today or yesterday that Iran is the biggest supporter/promoter of State-sponsored terrorism in the entire world.  One only can assume that by "terrorism" he means that of ISIS and Al Qaida... you know, the ones who are Sunnis... the ones who are the sworn enemies of Iran... that same Iran that is in the Shia sect of Islam.  Apparently (& we certainly don't know this for a fact) Trump is unaware that there's a Sunni-Shia civil (or religious) war going on throughout the Muslim portion of the Middle East.  I find it quite incredible that a major candidate for national office here would be unaware of such a thing.

2.  Not long ago, he stated that Obama was the "Founder of ISIS".  He didn't explain why, but I'm fairly sure where that reasoning lies.  [By the way, I'm certainly no fan of Obama's...I think he's a Corporatist and a Perpetual War Hawk, as well as a gross violator of the Constitution.]  It is true that when Obama took office in January, 2009, he was in a big hurry to exit Iraq.  After we left that country, the U.S.-installed Shia gov't there began to oppress the Sunni residents even more...and the Muslim civil war continued, thus giving rise to ISIS (disaffected Sunnis).  Trump's reasoning, however, ignores the Americans who were 99% responsible for generating ISIS:  Dick Cheney, Dubya Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, and a whole slew of behind-the-scenes NeoCon theorists.  By the time Obama first got in office, the whole thing already was a complete shambles.

3.  His statements regarding "extreme vetting" and Cold War style identification & handling of those "hostile to our values" essentially is a call to return to the McCarthyism of the 1950's.  Any major candidate calling for such a thing nowadays would have to be a total ignoramus.  That rhetoric appeals to perhaps 10-15% of the electorate...and turns off everyone else.  No serious candidate would ever make such a proposal... because instituting that policy would be completely un-American.  [Instead of "Hoo-ah", the Don's call to action is "H.U.A.C.".]  Anyone who can't see why that would be an extremely dangerous, slippery slope simply is not thinking on all cylinders.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Here's Something That Trumps Trump...and Hillary, et. al.

The Don's latest utterances, which were largely critical of (or demeaning to) the Muslim parents of a U.S. Army Captain who was killed serving in Iraq, were truly beyond the pale.  All Trump supporters should be thoroughly embarrassed.  The father, Mr. Kahn, rightly had suggested that Trump should read a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

In particular, Mr. Trump, it would serve you well to study the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Hillary, as well, would be served by reading especially Article I, Section 8.  I suggest, Ms. Clinton, you concentrate on the clauses regarding war, captures on land & sea, and assassinations (Letters of Marque and Reprisal).  Please have your buddy, the President, re-read those parts, too.  Our Leader, the Constitutional Scholar, apparently has no common sense when it comes to those clauses.

Finally, to all the above and all high-level politicians in D.C., it's way past time for you to review this simple fact, and apply it to your work:  no law---not the PATRIOT Act, not the War Powers Act, not the National Defense Authorization Act, not even any Act (or Executive Order) proposed by Trump---over-rides the Constitution.  The Supreme Law of the Land cannot be negated simply because certain propagandists ram a 342-page Bill through Congress that no one has had time to read...and only two copies were available to members of the House (who were in session all night)...and that was written long before 9-11.  [I refer to the infamous, unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, officially known as the USA PATRIOT Act, which stands for:  "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001".]

Again--- no law (or Exec. Order) trumps the U.S. Constitution, not even laws that Trump says he'll get through Congress...such as a law requiring all Muslims to be "registered" (which clearly would be unconstitutional...and un-American).

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Fanatics, Oligarchs, Propaganda, and What's Really Important

Below is my Reply to a friend's email & an article he attached.

Another attempt to paint all Muslims as terrorists.  Mohammed was warlike because when Islam was founded, polytheistic beliefs reigned supreme at the time in that region of Arabia, & their adherents all attacked Muslims...attempting to run them out of the region or kill them.

Yes, fanatics/extremists exist...a tiny fraction.  You often ask why Moderate Muslims don't speak up.  Perhaps in most cases they're afraid of being murdered by the nutcakes.  Perhaps they fear they'll be attacked by "Right-Wing American Patriots" for defending Islam... a distinct possibility in this country.  Some have spoken out, denouncing the fanatics...I've seen the videos.  Then there are those clips cherry-picked by Fox, Beck, etc. that show the opposite.

If Muslims (of any stripe) break the law, then arrest them, try them, sentence them, & incarcerate them.  It's a Law Enforcement issue, not a military one.  The whole thing is Oligarchical, Boogie-Man Propaganda...and apparently, it works quite well.  Sorry, but you'll never convince me otherwise.  It's nothing but a huge DISTRACTION [from the ravages of Corporatism].  Yes, criminals exist; but to think that all Muslims are criminals is sheer nonsense.  To quote the "Koran" (as many do), thus "proving" one's case, is ridiculous.  Anyone can quote similar crap in the "Holy Bible"... one of the bloodiest tales in existence.  It doesn't prove anything.  Taking things out of context is such an easy gig.  It boggles my mind that some Americans can be misled so easily.  

This country really deserves to be ruled by Oligarchs and Propaganda...it's such an easy sell to the majority of We the People... and, the Entertainers on the Fox network so obviously are not objective, not professional news people, and not at all concerned about the Republic of the USA.  They're as bad as the clowns on CBS, CNN, NBC, etc.---the ones that serve pablum in place of news---Fox is just a different extreme [of the same distraction].  They are all the networks of the super-rich... and, as Machiavelli knew, the super-rich must sell the concept of the-Boogie-Man-is-coming if they are to remain in power.  "The Prince" must be very pleased with the USA today.  [End of Reply]

.........................................................................

The most important political issues for Americans today have nothing to do with Muslims or terrorism.  Instead, they are:  the loss of much of our manufacturing base; the crimes inherent in Financialization; Crony Capitalism and the State-Corporate Complex in general; the fraud of Globalization; the ignoring of the Constitution whenever convenient; and the ongoing conversion of the USA into a Police State.  Genuine participatory democracy does not exist here.  The Middle Class continues to shrink.  Jobs created by the super-rich more often than not are worth a tinker's damn.  Wages essentially have stagnated for thirty years, but the Oligarchs' incomes have increased by 700%.  Americans now can be arrested on our soil and held incommunicado indefinitely... no warrant, no lawyer, no habeas corpus, no trial.  Most other issues are nothing but distractions.

Partly just my opinion.  Be Well    

The Third Iraq War, Terrorism, and Common Sense

Let's set aside the U.S. Constitution for the time being.  Instead, let us view the current war situation from the standpoint of common sense...simple logic.  Query:  why would anyone believe any of the following to be true???

1.  The U.S. Gov't has been training and advising the Iraqi Army and security forces for about TEN years; therefore, we now need to train and advise the Iraqi Army and security forces.  [Ditto Afghanistan.]

2.  One way to defeat terrorism is to invade Muslim countries and bomb the hell out of them, thus further inflaming Muslim fanatics.  That is to our advantage.

3.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to launch weaponized drones into countries not at war with us and kill SUSPECTS.  Any collateral damage sustained will not further inflame either terrorists or non-terrorists.  They simply will accept it as, "oh well, that's war".  There will be no repercussions or Blowback.

4.  When we attack a faction [ISIS, for example] in a civil war [for which our destabilization of Iraq was partly responsible] BEFORE they attack or even threaten the U.S., we should not expect any retaliation on their part.  After all, they are "terrorists"...we are not.

5.  When we utilize inhumane practices such as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation", we should not expect that Muslim fanatics will retaliate in any way...or that any innocent people caught up in those abominations will become extremists.

6.  Because criminal extremists ignore borders, we can as well.  That's perfectly reasonable.

7.  "There will be no American combat ground troops in Iraq."  [He's giving us his word on that... and given the man's history with keeping his word, we should believe him.  Even if Obama is sincere & telling what he believes to be the truth, there is no way on Earth that he can know what may be required for that war in the future.]

8.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to intervene in civil wars.

9.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to kill the Head Honcho (Osama) of the extremists and then dump his body at sea.  There should be no Blowback from that.

10.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to maintain Army, Navy, and/or Air Force bases in Muslim countries... the very thing that Osama said was his reason for launching a terrorist campaign.

11.  Moving the U.S. Headquarters for the Third Iraq War from the Pentagon to the State Department shows that we are interested in more than just a military solution.

12.  ISIS was not responsible for 9-11; nevertheless, they are so similar to Al Qaida that we are justified in attacking them... and we can use the same "authorization" that we used about TEN+ years ago.  [There are no separate wars anymore...it's all one big, continuous war.]

13.  After we "defeat" ISIS, they won't simply fade back into the woodwork... to reappear later.  The military option really is the best primary method to crush Muslim terrorists.

14.  We can do it with no American combat troops on the ground.  Airstrikes and supporting the "moderate" rebels in Syria will suffice.  [These are the same "moderates" who recently beheaded six of their captives, and previous to that, sold a now-murdered journalist to ISIS for about $50,000.  No worries that they will be our allies.]

15.  All of this has absolutely nothing to do with access to oil or the estimated one trillion dollars worth of mineral resources (some of which are becoming very scarce in the world) beneath the ground in Afghanistan.  Nothing at all to do with any of that.  Your Gov't doesn't lie about such things.

Again, why would anyone believe any of that to be true?

Be Well

The CURRENT WARS of Obama's Fed Government

The USA's Fed Gov't is involved in the following wars.  They are wars because Obama is having the U.S. Military (not Law Enforcement personnel) shoot at people and kill them.  That's war.  These all belong to Obama now.

1.  The Third Iraq War, the one launched just recently.

2.  The ongoing War in Pakistan, the one where the highest levels of our Gov't order Hellfire missiles to be shot (from drones) at SUSPECTS.

3.  Ditto the War in Yemen.

4.  Ditto the War in Somalia.

5.  The War in Afghanistan, our longest war, and the one nobody is quite sure anymore why it is that we're still there.  Obviously, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Raytheon, CACI, GE, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and several other transnational mega corporations are enjoying tremendous benefits from that never-ending war, but surely that's not a good enough reason to STILL be there.  Is it?  Well, yes, if you are a member of the Plutocracy in a soft Fascist State such as the USA---where the public constantly is being bombarded with Edward Bernays style propaganda---then it is a good enough reason.  Follow the money; war is Big Business...very big.

Those are the wars of which I am aware and/or can remember at the moment.  Perhaps there are others as well.  Some may attempt to argue that those five wars really are all one war--- the War on Terrorism.  It's a tempting argument, and we certainly have been propagandized enough to believe it.  If, however, we engage in some critical thinking, that argument quickly falls apart.  Consider the following.
1.  The fanatics we're fighting are all in separate entities; there is no "central command".  There is no group with the title, "Terrorism".  So, for example, the Taliban (whose leaders we hosted here in 1997 in order to negotiate a pipeline in Afghanistan) have completely different objectives as compared to ISIS.  They only want to run Afghanistan, as they were doing in 1997 when we invited them here for a business deal.  [Query:  did our Gov't consider them nasty brutes then?  If so, why were we treating them as potential business partners?]
2.  The propaganda is this (especially amongst so-called "Conservatives"):  there is one group we're fighting; it's "the Muslims", in particular, the fanatical element of the Muslims.  Really?  So, are they Sunnis or Shiites?  The fanatics, the extremists in Islam (not the mainstream) are at each other's throats.  They are not one group.  They appear to be worried more about each other than about us.  Plus, from what I can see, the Taliban don't give a damn about anything except Afghanistan.  Us still being in that country is complete nonsense.  To think of "the Muslims" as a monolithic, homogeneous entity also is nonsense.
3.  Specifically, whose military are we fighting in this supposed "War on Terrorism"?  The people we're fighting are not in an Army; they are a bunch of heterogeneous criminal gangs (of a sort).  They each have their own agenda.  Should any of them ever attack the USA again, it is a matter for Law Enforcement, not our Military.  Most all of the plots against our country have been thwarted by LAW ENFORCEMENT Agencies, not our Armed Forces.  Soldiers are not cops, and shouldn't be expected to fulfill that function.

Finally, the five wars listed above are all illegal, unconstitutional wars.  Three uses of the military are permitted by the Constitution:  to repel invasions (of this country); to quell insurrections (in this country); and to enforce the laws of the land (in this country) when minor rebellions make that necessary---for example, the Whisky Rebellion of the late 1700s, or the refusal to integrate schools in the South in the mid-sixties.  No law trumps the Constitution, so the War Powers Act cannot be used legally to justify going to war for some reason other than the three scenarios listed above.

That leaves only TREATIES to justify wars outside the USA (if we haven't been attacked at home).  Treaties do trump the Constitution.  IF that's what's being used to justify the five wars above, I'd like to see those Treaties...especially the one with Somalia or any of its neighbors.  [As to Afghanistan, it wasn't the Taliban who attacked us on 9-11-01.  Their refusal to turn over Osama supposedly justified us going to war with Afghanistan.  The truth is:  the Taliban replied to our Fed Govt's request by saying essentially this:  show us some proof of his guilt and we'll turn him over to you.  Our Gov't refused.  Being a guest of an Afghan tribal society is a really big deal in their culture.  I think the Taliban's request for proof was reasonable.]  The funny thing is, I've never heard the DC Plutocrats use any Treaty to justify the wars in question.  Usually they claim the right to go to war based on the War Powers Act and/or the duties of Commander-in-Chief.  They certainly couldn't use a Treaty to justify invading Iraq in 2003; Saddam hadn't attacked any other country then, whether our ally or not.  The Bush Administration's justification was that Saddam was guilty of PRE-Crime.  [Explained in a previous post on this Blog.]  As Bush put it, "If we wait for the smoking gun, it will be too late."...sounds good, but that's a completely illegal reason to attack and invade another country.

Any way you examine supposed justifications for the above-listed wars, they turn out to be illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, and even immoral.  Welcome to the Soft Fascist States of America, a land I love, but sincerely regret the fact that we no longer have a representative government...and that's been true for decades.  Carroll Quigley was right in 1966.

It's a genuine shame.

Be Well

Muslims, Governments, War, and the Oligarchy

Below is my response to a dear friend of mine who sent me an anonymous "broadcast" type email.  That email was about how Muslims seem to be happy only in non-Muslim countries, and totally unhappy in Muslim countries.  The author laced the piece with numerous bits of sarcastic humor as to why that was [supposedly] true in each case.  Even though it was ridiculous, my bizarre sense of humor did find it funny.  My response---

That is funny!  On the serious side, here's why they're "happy" in non-Muslim countries---

The U.S. Gov't (& often the U.K. Gov't as well) is not bombing them in non-Muslim countries.  Their beloved grandmothers are not being blown to bits by a drone strike in non-Muslim countries, like they are in a country that's not even at war with the USA (Pakistan).  I've seen numerous interviews on Democracy Now with Pakistani victims and/or bystanders whose relatives have been killed by drone strikes.  Your tax dollars have killed over 1400 innocent civilians in Pakistan alone.  

The so-called "War on Terror" (a term not even used anymore) could easily be over--- all the Fed Gov't would have to do is pull out of Muslim countries, stop bombing them, stop attacking SUSPECTS with drone strikes, stop supporting Muslim dictatorships (like Egypt & Saudi Arabia), and let the proper agencies handle any further terrorist incidents---law enforcement agencies.  Soldiers are not trained to be cops, & shouldn't be expected to do that job.

It's a myth that most Muslims are trying to take over the world...propaganda put out by Oligarchs.  The tiny radical element in Islam that might be trying that has been trying for about 1400 yrs.  Apparently they aren't very good at it.  The Oligarchy will never let them succeed.  They don't have a prayer (no pun intended:).

The Oligarchs in the USA and their wholly owned subsidiary, the Fed Gov't, use the Muslim thing simply to keep Perpetual War going.  It's good for BIG Business (less than 1% of Business), and it keeps the "bewildered herd", the "little people", and the "ignorant masses" (what Oligarchs refer to the rest of us as) under control.

You don't really believe that some average joe or jane sat around & composed that piece, do you?  I admit, it's certainly possible that happened, but it's more likely that is propaganda concocted by some subgroup working for some "Public Relations" firm that was hired by some "Nonprofit" outfit of Oligarchs, probably all of them in some particular industry.  Just my guess.  The point of it is to keep the "bewildered herd" continually mad at or fed up with (or both) some designated "boogie-man" group.  So, then, when a few fanatics from that overall group blow something up in the name of "The Almighty Whoever", it's easier to convince the "little people" or "ignorant masses" that the U.S. must spend military blood, and treasure we don't have, on bombing some country and killing hundreds of thousands of their sovereign citizens.  No wonder the Muslims are pissed off AND want to live in Western countries.

Our biggest Arab ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia (a dictatorship), sponsors the most radical, fundamentalist, fanatic sect of Islam in the world (Wahhabism, the Wahhabi Sect) as a State Religion.  The Wahhabis spread their extremism all around the globe.  Ask yourself why our Fed Gov't has the Saudis as an ally.  The answer is much more than oil...or business ties to the Bush family.

Once again, none of the above is any kind of "conspiracy".

Partly just my opinion.  Be Well

Immigration, Reproduction, & the Constitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atIjykihkc

If the stats in the above video are correct, then that's one more reason to pressure Congress to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. [See http://foavc.org/ ]

Currently only the President has to be a natural-born citizen in order to hold elective office. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be proposed that requires ALL national politicians to be natural-born, as well as their ancestors (going back, say, 100 years or so). "Unfair", some would say. Really? I guess that means the current requirement for the office of President is unfair as well, eh?

Without that Amendment, it would appear that we easily could have a national government run by Muslims in only several decades or so. Is that bad? Well, it seems to me that it might be...especially given the fact that our government has been converted illegally into a Democracy, as opposed to what it is supposed to be---a Constitutional Republic.

That conversion has been accomplished by means of Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Harlan in the early 1900s. In a Democracy, where the majority is almighty, almost any law can be put into effect...regardless of the negative impact on individual Rights. In a Constitutional Republic, individual Rights are paramount and the national government is one of enumerated powers---the government can do only what is listed in the Constitution. In other words, Congress cannot pass any law it wishes simply because a majority desires it.

Over the past several decades in my life, I've come across many people who believe sincerely that our government legally can pass any law it wishes, dealing with any subject, as long as a majority favors said law. That simply is not true. It can be (and has been) done illegally, but not legally. Our Constitution strictly limits the areas in which the government can delve; but those limitations have been ignored by Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) for many, many years. For example, nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the authority to have anything whatsoever to do with education. That matter was reserved (by the Tenth Amendment) to the States or to the People. No Constitutional Amendment has been ratified that gives the Fed Government such authority or power.