National borders will take time to become irrelevant. Wars will be
conducted by International Corporations. Nations such as the USA,
France, Spain, etc. will simply identify regions. We in the USA might
become the "American Corporate Empire", but the boundaries would
include any region that the ACE could control. Wars would break out
over the right to possess certain regions resources. Initially, the
ACE with its huge military, its many bases around the globe, and its
huge stock of weapons, would most likely step up to the number one
spot. As is the nature of Empires, the ACE would over reach its
resources, spending more than it could gather back, and other Empires
would begin to divide up the ACE's regions. At some point in time
there would no longer be national borders.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/19/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We will continue to have national borders because we must have wars in order
for military contractors to profit.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 10:44 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: House Democrats Vote to Block Consideration
of Impeachment
How much more proof is needed to confirm that these United States of America
are the property of an Oligarchy that existed prior to the Revolutionary
War, and has morphed from a Republic, to an Empire and on to an American
Corporate Empire. Indeed, even as I write, the American Corporate Empire is
moving toward abandoning the USA and competing in the formation of
International Corporate Empires.
I have said in the past that we will soon no longer have national borders
that matter. We will be paying allegiance to a Corporate Flag. In this new
distribution of our collective wealth, anyone who is not a member of the
ruling Oligarchy exists solely to serve the Ruling Class. For this reason I
have long proposed that we divide our Capitalistic world into two Classes.
The Ruling Class and the Working Class. The Ruling Class is easy to define.
Anyone who takes from the People, without lifting a finger to earn it,
belongs to the Ruling Class.
And, anyone who is wholly or partly used by the Ruling Class, regardless of
how well rewarded they might be, is a member of the Working Class. Anyone
in the Working Class, no matter how well they have served their Masters in
the past, can be dismissed and reduced to poverty if they are of no further
use to the Oligarchy.
So in my opinion, impeachment of Donald Trump is akin to spitting in the
wind. Even if spitting gets rid of the bad taste in our mouths, the wind
will still blow. And it is that wind that blows no good.
After Donald Trump, then what? President Mike Pence? President Pence, with
his White Supremacist, Male Superiority? A cooler, more rational finger on
the button? None of that will affect the Profiteers. Change leaders and
Parties all you want, just so long as the Oligarchy controls them...owns
them. Every elected person in congress, every appointee to any federal
office be it the Supreme Court or the DC Dog Catcher, is under the control
to one degree or another, by the Oligarchy. Even our most "Liberal
Socialist Democrat, Bernie Sanders treads carefully around the munition
manufacturers in his home State of Vermont. The Swamp needs draining all
right. It is full of a stinking acid of greed and corruption. But the man
who promised to drain it, well, just stop and think of the ugliest fish in
Puget Sound, the nightmarish Rat Fish, swimming about in the growing filth
collecting at the bottom of the Sea. If he could, do you think for one
minute that he would pull a plug that would take away all his wonderful
filth? And if our political parties only fed on the filth in their
wonderful government, it would be one thing. But unlike the Rat Fish
monster, politicians reach out and grab the lives of innocent, decent
working class Americans.
If we don't have the stomach to change the rotten system that now controls
our lives, then we are only wasting our efforts.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/19/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
House Democrats Vote to Block Consideration of Impeachment By William
Boardman, Reader Supported News
18 December 17
Led by Pelosi and other usual suspects, Dems unprincipled as ever
On December 6, a majority of Democrats in the House joined all House
Republicans in voting to prevent the House of Representatives from
even debating articles of impeachment against President Trump. The
House voted
364-58 (with 10 non-votes) to table impeachment articles (H RES 646)
sponsored by Texas Democrat Al Green. Over the strong objections of
Democratic leaders (an oxymoron), Green had brought his impeachment
resolution to a vote by invoking his personal privilege as a House
member.
Green's resolution began:
ARTICLE I
In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the
high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties
thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability
within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with
his statements done more than insult individuals and groups of
Americans, he has harmed the society of the United States, brought
shame and dishonor to the office of President of the United States,
sowing discord among the people of the United States by associating
the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white
supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or
neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions.
There is nothing surprising or false in this observation. The
remainder of Article I lists well-reported occasions when Trump acted as
described.
There
is no doubt that the events occurred. Article I concludes that:
"Donald John Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United
States is unfit to be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and
removal from office."
There is no question about what Trump's behavior has been. The
argument would be whether his behavior constitutes an impeachable
offense under the Constitution's Article II, section 4, which provides
only that:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.
So what are "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? The Constitution
does not say, and no one knows with certainty what the Constitution's
framers thought they were. What it comes down to in any case of
impeachment is whether the president's behavior is serious enough or
damaging enough to the good of the country as a whole that he should
be removed from office. Is it enough that he openly violates his oath
of office? Is it enough that he issues orders illegal on their face?
Is it enough that he continues to commit the war crimes of his
predecessors? Is it enough that he trumpets impeachable offenses on
TV? Is it enough that he has flouted the Constitution since
Inauguration Day? Is it enough that he publicly corrupts the legal
process?
In any healthy society, the behavior of Donald John Trump would be
enough to provoke serious debate as to whether the country should
suffer it any further.
A majority of Democrats, appearing neither serious nor healthy, have
now gone on record in opposition even to debating Trump's behavior on
its merits. Those Democrats, 128 of them, mostly white-privileged,
have voted in tacit support of the racism, bigotry, and prejudice
streaming from the Trump administration. Led by Nancy Pelosi, these
128 Democrats (including all the party leadership except James
Clyburn) have taken a public pass on discussing real issues of
conscience with national importance. Only 58 Democrats voted with
conscience, and the corruption of our system is expressed by
Washington's surprise that there were so many, not so few.
Surprise that there were "only" 128 cowards among Democrats in the
House is well founded. Nancy Pelosi is the same leader who lacked the
stomach to try to impeach George Bush for lying us into a war that the
country continues to pay for in money and blood, albeit mostly other
people's blood. In Pelosi-World, if lying the country into war isn't
an impeachable offense, what is?
And let's be clear here, it's not as if the votes of any of those 128
Democrats were going to make any material difference in the outcome.
The Republican majority in the House was going to table the
impeachment resolution no matter how any of the Democrats voted. The
Democrats voting not to consider articles of impeachment had no
practical grounds for doing so. Each of them put personal politics
ahead of any moral reckoning, much less the desperate need of the
country for principled leadership. Each of them cast a squalid vote
not to confront the profoundly destructive behavior outlined in the
impeachment articles, the second (and last) of which began:
ARTICLE II
In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the
high duties of his high office, of the dignity and proprieties
thereof, and of the harmony, and respect necessary for stability
within the society of the United States, Donald John Trump has with
his statements done more than simply insult individuals and groups of
Americans, he has harmed the American society by publicly casting
contempt on individuals and groups, inciting hate and hostility,
sowing discord among the people of the United States, on the basis of
race, national origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation, on one or
more of the following occasions .
Again the resolution lists illustrative instances of the offending
behavior, which happened without any doubt.
But 128 Democrats don't want to object, or even to be seen as being
willing to object to Trump behavior. These 128 Democrats prefer to be
seen voting not to discuss outrages even when there is no chance
whatsoever that these outrages will be subject to public debate. They
all knew before they voted that Republicans wouldn't allow it. Yet
given an absolutely no-risk opportunity to object to Trump behavior,
128 Democrats chose instead to vote as if they have no serious
objection to racism-based policy dominating American government. How
can we know that's not exactly true?
Democrats have been fleeing from the impeachment process for months
now, ever since Green first brought out his articles in May. At least
six other House Democrats have filed articles of impeachment against
Trump, none of which have been voted on yet. Five new articles of
impeachment were introduced in mid-November, charging Trump with
obstruction of justice, illegally taking money from foreign entities,
illegally taking money from American entities, undermining the courts
in violation of his oath of office, and undermining public media in
violation of the First Amendment - all producing demonstrable damage
to the United States as a constitutional democracy.
This is all denied by the Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and her
minority whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who said without apparent irony:
Do we disagree with the policies? We do. But disagreeing with the
policies is not enough to overturn an election, a free and fair
election.. There are a large number of Democrats that believe this
president ought to be impeached, we have just a made a judgment that
the facts aren't there to pursue that..
According to Hoyer, 2016 was - unquestionably - a "free and fair
election,"
despite evidence that it was anything but, especially the Democratic
primaries. He and Pelosi might well have reason to keep anyone from
looking too closely at any of that. Their personal culpability in a
corrupt primary process involves, at the very least, doing nothing
about it. And the troubles of the Democratic party leadership run much
deeper than that, as lucidly articulated Nomicki Konst, member of the
Democratic National Committee Unity Reform Commission, who wonders why
the DNC spent $700,000 on five "consultants" but didn't have money for
yard signs in Michigan and Wisconsin.
And there's no sense or decency coming from Doug Jones, who was just
elected Senator from Alabama. He says the sexual aggression
allegations against Trump don't much matter now. He dismisses the
women who have come forward recently, he dismisses the movie "16 Women
and Donald Trump" recently released by Brave New Films, and he
dismisses calls for Trump's resignation or impeachment. Senator-elect
Jones, a lawyer who probably knows better, told CNN's Jake Tapper in
his pseudo-folksy Alabama manner:
You know, Jake, where I am on that right now is that those allegations
were made before the election. And so people had an opportunity to
judge before that election. I think we need to move on and not get
distracted by those issues. Let's get on with the real issues that are
facing the people of this country right now.
THAT expresses the specious heart of the Democratic Party these days,
a party of dishonesty and denial. Jones must know that the allegations
raised during the election were not fully vetted. Jones must know that
the allegations have expanded and taken on more weight and credibility
as strong, articulate women have come forward to support them. Jones
dismisses issues that matter significantly to more than half the
population. And what does Jones mean by "real issues"? Does he really
think a corrupt, bigoted president threatening nuclear war is not a real
issue?
The reality of the Trump presidency is that the president has not
spent a single minute in office when he wasn't committing at least one
impeachable offense. Advised after the election to divest himself of
conflicts of interest, Trump complied in part but continues to profit
from foreign and domestic businesses in clear violation of the
Constitution's emoluments clauses ( Foreign, Article 1, Section 9,
Clause 8; and Domestic, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). In a lawsuit
pending since June, almost 200 House and Senate Democrats have sued
Trump to enforce the emoluments clauses. On Inauguration Day 2017,
attorney John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People started an impeachment
campaign based on the emoluments clauses. In his view, impeachment can
and should proceed as a civil action parallel to the criminal action
headed by special counsel Robert Mueller. On Democracy NOW December
15, Bonifaz spoke of the difference between criminal and civil
procedures:
The question here are crimes against the state. That is what
impeachment is about - abuse of power, abuse of public trust, and not
only through the violations of the anti-corruption provisions. There
is now, of course, evidence of obstruction of justice. There's
evidence of potential conspiracy with the Russian government to
interfere with the 2016 elections and violate federal campaign finance
laws, among others. There is now evidence of abuse of the pardon power
in the pardoning of former Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
There's recklessly threatening nuclear war against a foreign nation.
There's misuse of the Justice Department to try to prosecute political
adversaries. And there's the giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis and
white supremacists. All of this-all of this deserves an impeachment
investigation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Realistically, no impeachment proceeding can go forward without some
Republicans, an unlikely development before the 2018 elections. The
Democrats in charge seem to have the same blind assumption of winning
that they had in 2016, which is hardly reassuring. Waiting for that
"certain"
victory, those Democrats are content to subject the country to another
year of unchecked Trump behavior, with no Plan B should Democrats fail
to take the House. Meanwhile, Democratic shucking and jiving does
nothing to bring Republicans face to face with their own
monstrosities. Democratic dishonesty at the top seems to know no
shame, as Pelosi said with counter-factual
fatuity:
If you're going to go down the impeachment path, you have to know you
can do it not in a partisan way... We have an investigation in the
Justice Department that is seeking facts. We don't want it to look
political.. [My goal is] for our country is to come together to win
the next election.
Impeachment is inherently partisan, with the possibility of being
bipartisan in part. In reality, "not partisan" is a lie or a delusion.
The Mueller investigation is a criminal investigation that may or may
not lead directly to indicting a sitting president. It cannot lead
directly to impeachment and removal from office. It might lead there
indirectly, but that's a long process that took three years with
Nixon. The goal of the country coming together is a fantasy, and
winning the next election is purely partisan - what Pelosi says is
obscurantist garbage, but that seems to be the best Democratic leaders
can give us these days.
Note: listed below are the 58 House Democrats who voted to proceed to
consider Rep. Green's two articles of impeachment. If your
Representative is not among them, you might ask him or her why. If
we're to have a Democratic wave election in 2018, it might as well be
one worth having.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio,
TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the
Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of
America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine,
and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner