Translate

Wednesday 15 February 2017


Re-printed from 5th January, 2017


Is It Possible For An Incumbent U.S. President To Be Charged With The Crime of Treason?

Not too long ago I asked this question and the answer I was given was very interesting.
As I understand it, the definition of treason (or what constitutes treason) is very clear and very well-defined.
It is highly unlikely that a sitting U.S. President would be indicted simply because of the profound effects which this would have on the institution of the Presidency and credibility of the democratic process itself (!)
[Impeachment and resignation, followed by a pardon, would be more the order of the day.]
I found this to be a remarkable answer as I had naively assumed that such, if effected, would, in the eyes of the American public, strengthen the democratic process.
[This perhaps, more shows my naivety when it comes to 'raw' politics than it does anything else.]

I was assured that such a hypothesis was highly unlikely and that a U.S. President (or President elect) would never work to undermine his own Office with such reckless behavior.
That having been said, the revelations that 'actors' (Staff) of both (incoming) President Nixon and (incoming) President Reagan both, in defiance of U.S. laws, worked quietly to undermine incumbent but outgoing Presidents for political advantage, did not re-assure me that this will not happen again.
What would be the implications of, say, Chief Executives of major oil companies, global corporations or billionaire 'actors' personally carrying secret messages to President Putin to bypass the U.S. intelligence community (such as the CIA, The NSA or the DNI) or undermine departmental individuals targeted by a 'mentally unbalanced' (psychotic) President in the White House for 'character assassination' or indeed as a 'false flag' to 'assassinate' (metaphorically speaking) potential future rivals (such as Paul Ryan as just one example.)    Fanciful thinking?   Beyond the Pale?  Well far too much has been happening  lately in the United States political world which is more in the making of a surreal play than most average folks can get a grip on.
Would 'plausible deniability' cover anyone (Trump-appointed Directors or their appointees of the CIA or DNI for example) who was personally aware that this was going on if 'all hell broke loose' and they had to explain their actions to the American public?
Fanciful thinking on my part?   Well think again.
Trump and the Republicans are about to appoint many senior staff with very close links to the Kremlin.   How safe do you feel?
The donkey answers from the weak, the feeble and the scared are the usual crap ''well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear''. 
Every country has business secrets, trade secrets, copyright and research secrets.
Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have already blazed the trail and shown how it is done: simply appoint (or work to have appointed) a low-level (expendable) Russian spy(ies) in the U.S. or elsewhere, ensure that she or he has the required access and, at the flick of a computer switch, relay everything to Moscow.
Scenario Example
Have any of you out there who are paid to think out of the box thought about what would happen if, under such circumstances, a hostile superpower (Russia) collapsed (again) the world economic system?   Next time there might not be an Obama to 'bail' out the economy (its key players) but 'billionaires' in Trump's cabinet who would step in and 'buy up the country' (the United States) for cents on the dollars.
How do you (or I for that matter) know that the Kremlin has no such plan in place?
The U.S. and world economic order came very close to collapsing in 2008.  I have said previously that Russia has never forgiven Obama for saving both the U.S. and world economic order as curently exists. [I said this long before Trump was nominated so it stands to record.]
Who would benefit from another collapse?

Certainly the current world economic order would not.  Russia and the billionaire oligarchs who rule the Federation with or on behalf of Vladimir Putin most certainly would.
Trump's vision of billionaire to billionaire enslavement of the masses across continents may well be the final solution and, you know what, with such dumb-ass folks who are stupid enough to believe and vote such individuals into high office, in a way, perhaps they will get what they deserve.   Having said that, how can you blame ordinary hard-working law-abiding folk who, without realising it, have already been 'dumbed-down'?  [see a previous blog for a personal opinion on how this has partially been achieved.]

I started off on the subject of treason - and it's appropriate considering the fact that all the individuals mentioned here - Manning, Assange, Snowden - are all guilty of it.

[Even if you believe in open electronic frontiers -which I still do - to use classified, hacked and other materials supplied by Moscow to overthrow the democratic process is treason.]
When, however, the Oval Office and the President's Cabinet are partial, sympathetic or indeed secretly supportive to Wikileaks in opposition America's own intelligence agencies, it makes a world of a difference.

When, going on from that, the President appoints senior Military, Intelligence and Departmental Staff (at least one of whom should not be within a million kilometers of any classified data, let alone managing it, because of his known partial relationship, support from and support of Vladimir Putin) U.S. allies worldwide should carefully re-consider exactly how much and what level of data to be sharing - knowing as they now do, sharing anything with the U.S. will be, after 20th January 2017, just a data storage USB  away, from sharing it all with Moscow.
 
©Patrick Emek, January 2017

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2013/0305/Argo-helps-Iran-s-dictatorship-harms-democracy/(page)/2
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20287-without-reagans-treason-iran-would-not-be-a-problem
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/05/16/economically-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/#206c9e7f31bf
(not if history - or jumbled collections of half-truths - continue to be written by 'lying' historians!   PE)
Posted by at

Re-printed from 5th January 2017


Is It Possible For An Incumbent U.S. President To Be Charged With The Crime of Treason?
 
Not too long ago I asked this question and the answer I was given was very interesting.
 
As I understand it, the definition of treason (or what constitutes treason) is very clear and very well-defined.
It is highly unlikely that a sitting U.S. President would be indicted simply because of the profound effects which this would have on the institution of the Presidency and credibility of the democratic process itself (!)
[Impeachment and resignation, followed by a pardon, would be more the order of the day.]
I found this to be a remarkable answer as I had naively assumed that such, if effected, would, in the eyes of the American public, strengthen the democratic process.
[This perhaps, more shows my naivety when it comes to 'raw' politics than it does anything else.]
 
I was assured that such a hypothesis was highly unlikely and that a U.S. President (or President elect) would never work to undermine his own Office with such reckless behavior.
 
That having been said, the revelations that 'actors' (Staff) of both (incoming) President Nixon and (incoming) President Reagan both, in defiance of U.S. laws, worked quietly to undermine incumbent but outgoing Presidents for political advantage, did not re-assure me that this will not happen again.
 
What would be the implications of, say, Chief Executives of major oil companies, global corporations or billionaire 'actors' personally carrying secret messages to President Putin to bypass the U.S. intelligence community (such as the CIA, The NSA or the DNI) or undermine departmental individuals targeted by a 'mentally unbalanced' (psychotic) President in the White House for 'character assassination' or indeed as a
'false flag' to 'assassinate' (metaphorically speaking) potential future rivals (such as Paul Ryan as just one example.)    Fanciful thinking?   Beyond the Pale?  Well far too much has been happening  lately in the United States political world which is more in the making of a surreal play than most average folks can get a grip on.
 
Would 'plausible deniability' cover anyone (Trump-appointed Directors or their appointees of the CIA or DNI for example) who was personally aware that this was going on if 'all hell broke loose' and they had to explain their actions to the American public?
Fanciful thinking on my part?   Well think again.
 
Trump and the Republicans are about to appoint many senior staff with very close links to the Kremlin.   How safe do you feel?
The donkey answers from the weak, the feeble and the scared are the usual crap ''well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear''. 
Every country has business secrets, trade secrets, copyright and research secrets.
Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have already blazed the trail and shown how it is done: simply appoint (or work to have appointed) a low-level (expendable) Russian spy(ies) in the U.S. or elsewhere, ensure that she or he has the required access and, at the flick of a computer switch, relay everything to Moscow.
 
Scenario Example
Have any of you out there who are paid to think out of the box thought about what would happen if, under such circumstances, a hostile superpower (Russia) collapsed (again) the world economic system?   Next time there might not be an Obama to 'bail' out the economy (its key players) but 'billionaires' in Trump's cabinet who would step in and 'buy up the country' (the United States) for cents on the dollars.
How do you (or I for that matter) know that the Kremlin has no such plan in place?
The U.S. and world economic order came very close to collapsing in 2008.  I have said previously that Russia has never forgiven Obama for saving both the U.S. and world economic order as curently exists. [I said this long before Trump was nominated so it stands to record.]
Who would benefit from another collapse?
Certainly the current world economic order would not.  Russia and the billionaire oligarchs who rule the Federation with or on behalf of Vladimir Putin most certainly would.
Trump's vision of billionaire to billionaire enslavement of the masses across continents may well be the final solution and, you know what, with such dumb-ass folks who are stupid enough to believe and vote such individuals into high office, in a way, perhaps they will get what they deserve.   Having said that, how can you blame ordinary hard-working law-abiding folk who, without realising it, have already been 'dumbed-down'?  [see a previous blog for a personal opinion on how this has partially been achieved.]
 
I started off on the subject of treason - and it's appropriate considering the fact that all the individuals mentioned here - Manning, Assange, Snowden - are all guilty of it.
[Even if you believe in open electronic frontiers -which I still do - to use classified, hacked and other materials supplied by Moscow to overthrow the democratic process is treason.]
 
When, however, the Oval Office and the President's Cabinet are partial, sympathetic or indeed secretly supportive to Wikileaks in opposition America's own intelligence agencies, it makes a world of a difference.
When, going on from that, the President appoints senior Military, Intelligence and Departmental Staff (at least one of whom should not be within a million kilometers of any classified data, let alone managing it, because of his known partial relationship, support from and support of Vladimir Putin) U.S. allies worldwide should carefully re-consider exactly how much and what level of data to be sharing - knowing as they now do, sharing anything with the U.S. will be, after 20th January 2017, just a data storage USB  away, from sharing it all with Moscow.
 
 



©Patrick Emek, January 2017


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(not if history - or jumbled collections of half-truths - continue to be written by 'lying' historians!   PE)
 

Posted by at


Re-printed from 5th January 2017


Is It Possible For An Incumbent U.S. President To Be Charged With The Crime of Treason?
 
Not too long ago I asked this question and the answer I was given was very interesting.
 
As I understand it, the definition of treason (or what constitutes treason) is very clear and very well-defined.
It is highly unlikely that a sitting U.S. President would be indicted simply because of the profound effects which this would have on the institution of the Presidency and credibility of the democratic process itself (!)
[Impeachment and resignation, followed by a pardon, would be more the order of the day.]
I found this to be a remarkable answer as I had naively assumed that such, if effected, would, in the eyes of the American public, strengthen the democratic process.
[This perhaps, more shows my naivety when it comes to 'raw' politics than it does anything else.]
 
I was assured that such a hypothesis was highly unlikely and that a U.S. President (or President elect) would never work to undermine his own Office with such reckless behavior.
 
That having been said, the revelations that 'actors' (Staff) of both (incoming) President Nixon and (incoming) President Reagan both, in defiance of U.S. laws, worked quietly to undermine incumbent but outgoing Presidents for political advantage, did not re-assure me that this will not happen again.
 
What would be the implications of, say, Chief Executives of major oil companies, global corporations or billionaire 'actors' personally carrying secret messages to President Putin to bypass the U.S. intelligence community (such as the CIA, The NSA or the DNI) or undermine departmental individuals targeted by a 'mentally unbalanced' (psychotic) President in the White House for 'character assassination' or indeed as a
'false flag' to 'assassinate' (metaphorically speaking) potential future rivals (such as Paul Ryan as just one example.)    Fanciful thinking?   Beyond the Pale?  Well far too much has been happening  lately in the United States political world which is more in the making of a surreal play than most average folks can get a grip on.
 
Would 'plausible deniability' cover anyone (Trump-appointed Directors or their appointees of the CIA or DNI for example) who was personally aware that this was going on if 'all hell broke loose' and they had to explain their actions to the American public?
Fanciful thinking on my part?   Well think again.
 
Trump and the Republicans are about to appoint many senior staff with very close links to the Kremlin.   How safe do you feel?
The donkey answers from the weak, the feeble and the scared are the usual crap ''well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear''. 
Every country has business secrets, trade secrets, copyright and research secrets.
Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have already blazed the trail and shown how it is done: simply appoint (or work to have appointed) a low-level (expendable) Russian spy(ies) in the U.S. or elsewhere, ensure that she or he has the required access and, at the flick of a computer switch, relay everything to Moscow.
 
Scenario Example
Have any of you out there who are paid to think out of the box thought about what would happen if, under such circumstances, a hostile superpower (Russia) collapsed (again) the world economic system?   Next time there might not be an Obama to 'bail' out the economy (its key players) but 'billionaires' in Trump's cabinet who would step in and 'buy up the country' (the United States) for cents on the dollars.
How do you (or I for that matter) know that the Kremlin has no such plan in place?
The U.S. and world economic order came very close to collapsing in 2008.  I have said previously that Russia has never forgiven Obama for saving both the U.S. and world economic order as curently exists. [I said this long before Trump was nominated so it stands to record.]
Who would benefit from another collapse?
Certainly the current world economic order would not.  Russia and the billionaire oligarchs who rule the Federation with or on behalf of Vladimir Putin most certainly would.
Trump's vision of billionaire to billionaire enslavement of the masses across continents may well be the final solution and, you know what, with such dumb-ass folks who are stupid enough to believe and vote such individuals into high office, in a way, perhaps they will get what they deserve.   Having said that, how can you blame ordinary hard-working law-abiding folk who, without realising it, have already been 'dumbed-down'?  [see a previous blog for a personal opinion on how this has partially been achieved.]
 
I started off on the subject of treason - and it's appropriate considering the fact that all the individuals mentioned here - Manning, Assange, Snowden - are all guilty of it.
[Even if you believe in open electronic frontiers -which I still do - to use classified, hacked and other materials supplied by Moscow to overthrow the democratic process is treason.]
 
When, however, the Oval Office and the President's Cabinet are partial, sympathetic or indeed secretly supportive to Wikileaks in opposition America's own intelligence agencies, it makes a world of a difference.
When, going on from that, the President appoints senior Military, Intelligence and Departmental Staff (at least one of whom should not be within a million kilometers of any classified data, let alone managing it, because of his known partial relationship, support from and support of Vladimir Putin) U.S. allies worldwide should carefully re-consider exactly how much and what level of data to be sharing - knowing as they now do, sharing anything with the U.S. will be, after 20th January 2017, just a data storage USB  away, from sharing it all with Moscow.
 
 



©Patrick Emek, January 2017


 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(not if history - or jumbled collections of half-truths - continue to be written by 'lying' historians!   PE)
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Saturday 11 February 2017






Playing Devil's Advocate
We have all heard about the negative side of President Donald Trump but are ther policies which could get him re-elected in four years time?
The first obvious policy is jobs at home.   This is a major issue worldwide and it all centers around how the capitalist system operates purely for profit and at the expense of the average individual - whether in the United States or in Europe.
I will not give you a lecture here but suffice to say 'the little man' (and woman) are unimportant where profit is the sole motive.
This means that if it is more profitable to produce a motor car, a shirt, or any item you can think of in Mexico (or elsewhere for that matter) jobs will move to that low-income high profit (for an elite few) part of the world.
The lie is that such 'transfers' uplift local economies in the underdeveloped world.  If you look at those countries - mainly in South East Asia - in particular the ones which have prospered have not been those where low-income jobs have been at the core of their development.
Like Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam they are countries which have been very well governed and where some wealth has 'filtered down', where, unlike in Africa (by comparison) far less money has been 'wasted' corruptly making more available for the development of the infrastructural fabric.   They are countries which have embraced the philosophy of universal education, health for all and poverty eradication programs (remind you of someone - FDR and LBJ perhaps?)
Yes there are of course 'two Thailands' and 'two Vietnams' - one for the privileged and the other for those not so well off.
So 3 key components to a successful home policy are Health, Education and Employment.
Note that I said 'minimize' corruption as opposed to, what the Left always say 'end corruption'.
China has the most rigorous and puritanically fanatical anti-corruption laws in the world - and indeed (much to the applause of some sections in the West!) used to execute their top and brightest entrepreneurs found guilty of corruption.   There were private jokes in Europe and I am sure elsewhere (never voiced through the media) that at the rate China was going at one time with such 'public example' executions of top  'captains of industry'  the West simply had just to sit back and wait, as with North Korea, for the State (China) to 'run' out of executives and simply collapse because there would be nobody left with initiative and imagination to run the country.
[The average person knew very little about those key individuals in China against whom corruption charges were brought.  Many such charges, as in Russia, were politically motivated, others were designed to bring back some order and deter criminality, yet others were individuals who, quite clearly, had been 'set up' - with trumped-up charges by political and business rivals.]
Trump's choice of very wealthy individuals as Cabinet members could be highly beneficial if they are prepared to limit the ability of corporate America to exploit the weakest in American society - the poor, those on extremely low-incomes struggling all their lives to survive with little hope, faith (in politicians) or prospects for any betterment of their lives and those of their children, condemned to crime and poverty because of lack of opportunity - lack of a good education, schools of excellence for those most disadvantaged, a first-class health service for all, regardless of income; jobs, good quality homes at affordable rents, and above all, cheap medicines for parents, grandparents, children so that affordable health care is a right not a privilege.
So putting people back to work* and offering hope for those most disadvantaged through real wealth distribution and laws limiting 'corporate excesses' at the expense of jobs and investment at home, should be key components of U.S. domestic policy.
You might say to yourself : 'but what this guy (me) is saying is so obvious why is he even saying it?'
It is because greed has forgotten (or just left behind) the 'little man'.  Just watch any 'silent' 'Charlie Chaplin' film and you can still today compare excesses of wealth with impoverishment, crime and exploitation of the poor, the young, the weak and the elderly.  Not a lot has changed  for those at the bottom - despite the promises of politicians in America over the past 50 years.
***Obamacare was a real attempt to provide universal health coverage for all Americans.   He was thwarted by the Republican Party, by 'big business' the 'pharma' and private health care lobbies - who ultimately destroyed all plans for health care for all at an affordable price - because Obama sought to limit the profits of powerful industry groups through real wealth redistribution.
Trump will know this and they will similarly move to politically destroy (or render unenforceable) any policies which he likewise proposes which gives similar priorities to those who could benefit most (the low-paid average working and middle-class Americans.)
Indeed, in my opinion, better offer health care and education (to University level) with no direct charge to any American (or European in Christendom) but financed through taxation than the existing iniquitous system of 'unaffordable' education and health care for nearly 45 million Americans.
[In India there are programs which facilitate those most in need of emergency surgery and health treatment but who are too poor to afford it by 'cross-subsidizing' the private medical sector - with tax breaks and other incentives - because this is where the best and most talented of India's medical professionals are to be found working - not in the State-subsidized medical sector (which has a poor reputation for service and delivery.)   I do not wish to generalise here.  I have met caring professionals who, having made a good living in the private sector in India and who do excellent work.  One of such highly qualified medical professionals confided to me that he was returning to where his 'true vocation' really was - providing care for those most in impoverished and most in need of his expertise but who could never afford it.    I have to say that he is 'the exception' rather than 'the rule', in India. ]
I was intrigued in one particular region of India where at night hundreds of (mainly younger individuals and students) would 'gather' around 'relay' 'poles' or boxes by the beach and in local restaurants for 'free' high-speed wi-fi  access - courtesy of the local (municipal) government administration. 
Despite the fact that this is not a particularly rich State, there are multiple public-resourced buildings - the equivalent of 'Halls of The People' (my coined phrase) very large in size, pointedly unique in design attributes where, for example, a couple can marry at one building (at a subsidized cost) and have their wedding party or reception at the next (again State-subsidized) then go on to another Reception with a local dignitary in attendance - or to a  Recital of Vedic Music at yet another grand building - all in close proximity  and all at a highly subsidized cost to local people - courtesy of the State.
[That particular local administration is very popular.
I was arriving at the airport on the same day  a senior political figure was returning home and there were literally thousands of well-wishers at the airport in a carnival-like mood, with baskets and garlands  of flowers (rather than Molotov cocktails or guns or bombs!)  ready to throw in celebration of his arrival - with posters of him festooned everywhere together with fluttering streamers and multiple garlands on poles and boards, in the pattern of the flag of India, all the way from the airport building to the exit road.  A sight you rarely see in Europe or America these days for politicians.]
If it's good enough for India, then why not Europe or the United States?   Greed, or should I say more accurately, excessive greed, unfortunately; that's why.]
In Singapore they have a 'super internet highway' as a right for every citizen.   Yes Singapore and many other countries realise the internet is so important to their future growth and development that they are recognising it as a 'right' for all not a 'privilege' for the few.
So there are many programs - including safer cities and communities - with local public-law enforcement cooperation initiatives - where Trump could actually make a real and positive difference to the lives of all Americans.
The problem is that despite Trump's personal wish and desire to 'heal' 'crippled' America, his choice of Cabinet members are more indicative of 'partisan politics' which will, more likely than not, give rise to a more divided, embittered and unequal society, than fulfil the dreams for real change, for those who placed so much faith in his vision of 'the promised land.'

©Patrick Emek, February 2017


***CNN  and Fox Networks try to 'fool' the general public, where there as mass protests, by calling Obamacare  'The Affrodable Care Act' in the hope that you will miss the mass protests nationwide to retain Obamacare and be 'mentally confused' as to what the 'Affordable Care Act' actually is.   Remember when they (mainstream media) attempt to fool you when you see mass protests:
Obamacare = The Affordable Care Act


*when I refer to jobs, I am talking about decent paying full-time  jobs which enable a person to work Monday to Friday and collect a living wage to bring up a family and pay all the bills without having to 'moonlight' in two or more part-time jobs just to survive. (And if you are religious, as a right, in a Christian country, other than the emergency services, have Sunday as a day of rest.)
It is so ironic that the extremists want to abolish a woman's right to an abortion - yet having kids for most underpaid women in America can be itself a 'death sentence' - in terms of impoverishment, lack of financial subsidized State support to single parents and families to enable a dignified life free from financial hardship and eternal 'servitude' or serfdom.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crippled-America-Make-Great-Again/dp/1501137964

 
Posted by at

Thursday 9 February 2017





Playing Devil's Advocate
We have all heard about the negative side of President Donald Trump but are ther policies which could get him re-elected in four years time?
The first obvious policy is jobs at home.   This is a major issue worldwide and it all centers around how the capitalist system operates purely for profit and at the expense of the average individual - whether in the United States or in Europe.
I will not give you a lecture here but suffice to say 'the little man' (and woman) are unimportant where profit is the sole motive.
This means that if it is more profitable to produce a motor car, a shirt, or any item you can think of in Mexico (or elsewhere for that matter) jobs will move to that low-income high profit (for an elite few) part of the world.
The lie is that such 'transfers' uplift local economies in the underdeveloped world.  If you look at those countries - mainly in South East Asia - in particular the ones which have prospered have not been those where low-income jobs have been at the core of their development.
Like Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam they are countries which have been very well governed and where some wealth has 'filtered down', where, unlike in Africa (by comparison) far less money has been 'wasted' corruptly making more available for the development of the infrastructural fabric.   They are countries which have embraced the philosophy of universal education, health for all and poverty eradication programs (remind you of someone - FDR and LBJ perhaps?)
Yes there are of course 'two Thailands' and 'two Vietnams' - one for the privileged and the other for those not so well off.
So 3 key components to a successful home policy are Health, Education and Employment.
Note that I said 'minimize' corruption as opposed to, what the Left always say 'end corruption'.
China has the most rigorous and puritanically fanatical anti-corruption laws in the world - and indeed (much to the applause of some sections in the West!) used to execute their top and brightest entrepreneurs found guilty of corruption.   There were private jokes in Europe and I am sure elsewhere (never voiced through the media) that at the rate China was going at one time with such 'public example' executions of top  'captains of industry'  the West simply had just to sit back and wait, as with North Korea, for the State (China) to 'run' out of executives and simply collapse because there would be nobody left with initiative and imagination to run the country.
[The average person knew very little about those key individuals in China against whom corruption charges were brought.  Many such charges, as in Russia, were politically motivated, others were designed to bring back some order and deter criminality, yet others were individuals who, quite clearly, had been 'set up' - with trumped-up charges by political and business rivals.]
Trump's choice of very wealthy individuals as Cabinet members could be highly beneficial if they are prepared to limit the ability of corporate America to exploit the weakest in American society - the poor, those on extremely low-incomes struggling all their lives to survive with little hope, faith (in politicians) or prospects for any betterment of their lives and those of their children, condemned to crime and poverty because of lack of opportunity - lack of a good education, schools of excellence for those most disadvantaged, a first-class health service for all, regardless of income; jobs, good quality homes at affordable rents, and above all, cheap medicines for parents, grandparents, children so that affordable health care is a right not a privilege.
So putting people back to work* and offering hope for those most disadvantaged through real wealth distribution and laws limiting 'corporate excesses' at the expense of jobs and investment at home, should be key components of U.S. domestic policy.
You might say to yourself : 'but what this guy (me) is saying is so obvious why is he even saying it?'
It is because greed has forgotten (or just left behind) the 'little man'.  Just watch any 'silent' 'Charlie Chaplin' film and you can still today compare excesses of wealth with impoverishment, crime and exploitation of the poor, the young, the weak and the elderly.  Not a lot has changed  for those at the bottom - despite the promises of politicians in America over the past 50 years.
***Obamacare was a real attempt to provide universal health coverage for all Americans.   He was thwarted by the Republican Party, by 'big business' the 'pharma' and private health care lobbies - who ultimately destroyed all plans for health care for all at an affordable price - because Obama sought to limit the profits of powerful industry groups through real wealth redistribution.
Trump will know this and they will similarly move to politically destroy (or render unenforceable) any policies which he likewise proposes which gives similar priorities to those who could benefit most (the low-paid average working and middle-class Americans.)
Indeed, in my opinion, better offer health care and education (to University level) with no direct charge to any American (or European in Christendom) but financed through taxation than the existing iniquitous system of 'unaffordable' education and health care for nearly 45 million Americans.
[In India there are programs which facilitate those most in need of emergency surgery and health treatment but who are too poor to afford it by 'cross-subsidizing' the private medical sector - with tax breaks and other incentives - because this is where the best and most talented of India's medical professionals are to be found working - not in the State-subsidized medical sector (which has a poor reputation for service and delivery.)   I do not wish to generalise here.  I have met caring professionals who, having made a good living in the private sector in India and who do excellent work.  One of such highly qualified medical professionals confided to me that he was returning to where his 'true vocation' really was - providing care for those most in impoverished and most in need of his expertise but who could never afford it.    I have to say that he is 'the exception' rather than 'the rule', in India. ]
I was intrigued in one particular region of India where at night hundreds of (mainly younger individuals and students) would 'gather' around 'relay' 'poles' or boxes by the beach and in local restaurants for 'free' high-speed wi-fi  access - courtesy of the local (municipal) government administration. 
Despite the fact that this is not a particularly rich State, there are multiple public-resourced buildings - the equivalent of 'Halls of The People' (my coined phrase) very large in size, pointedly unique in design attributes where, for example, a couple can marry at one building (at a subsidized cost) and have their wedding party or reception at the next (again State-subsidized) then go on to another Reception with a local dignitary in attendance - or to a  Recital of Vedic Music at yet another grand building - all in close proximity  and all at a highly subsidized cost to local people - courtesy of the State.
[That particular local administration is very popular.
I was arriving at the airport on the same day  a senior political figure was returning home and there were literally thousands of well-wishers at the airport in a carnival-like mood, with baskets and garlands  of flowers (rather than Molotov cocktails or guns or bombs!)  ready to throw in celebration of his arrival - with posters of him festooned everywhere together with fluttering streamers and multiple garlands on poles and boards, in the pattern of the flag of India, all the way from the airport building to the exit road.  A sight you rarely see in Europe or America these days for politicians.]
If it's good enough for India, then why not Europe or the United States?   Greed, or should I say more accurately, excessive greed, unfortunately; that's why.]
In Singapore they have a 'super internet highway' as a right for every citizen.   Yes Singapore and many other countries realise the internet is so important to their future growth and development that they are recognising it as a 'right' for all not a 'privilege' for the few.
So there are many programs - including safer cities and communities - with local public-law enforcement cooperation initiatives - where Trump could actually make a real and positive difference to the lives of all Americans.
The problem is that despite Trump's personal wish and desire to 'heal' 'crippled' America, his choice of Cabinet members are more indicative of 'partisan politics' which will, more likely than not, give rise to a more divided, embittered and unequal society, than fulfil the dreams for real change, for those who placed so much faith in his vision of 'the promised land.'

©Patrick Emek, February 2017


***CNN  and Fox Networks try to 'fool' the general public, where there as mass protests, by calling Obamacare  'The Affrodable Care Act' in the hope that you will miss the mass protests nationwide to retain Obamacare and be 'mentally confused' as to what the 'Affordable Care Act' actually is.   Remember when they (mainstream media) attempt to fool you when you see mass protests:
Obamacare = The Affordable Care Act


*when I refer to jobs, I am talking about decent paying full-time  jobs which enable a person to work Monday to Friday and collect a living wage to bring up a family and pay all the bills without having to 'moonlight' in two or more part-time jobs just to survive. (And if you are religious, as a right, in a Christian country, other than the emergency services, have Sunday as a day of rest.)
It is so ironic that the extremists want to abolish a woman's right to an abortion - yet having kids for most underpaid women in America can be itself a 'death sentence' - in terms of impoverishment, lack of financial subsidized State support to single parents and families to enable a dignified life free from financial hardship and eternal 'servitude' or serfdom.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crippled-America-Make-Great-Again/dp/1501137964

 
Posted by at

Tuesday 7 February 2017


America's New Attorney General
                                      or
(The Whole World Knows What You Did, Back In 1986, 
Jeff Sessions)
 
In a move reminiscent of a Banana Republic, a sitting United States Senator, Elizabeth Warren, was effectively told to 'shut up' when she attempted to read to Members a letter from the widow of Doctor Martin Luther King about what Jeff Sessions had done to Black people in the 1980s and why it would be unwise to confirm him as Attorney General.
 
I attach a copy of Coretta Scott King's  letter so that you can consider and decide the matter for yourself.
 
The concern I have is with the broader information which Senator Warren did not have the opportunity to read out - Coretta Scott King's sworn deposition - because the Attorney General has literally the power of life or death when deciding how to use the Office with which he is entrusted.
 
If it appears that he has used a lower Public Office of high standing unlawfully in the past, the concern is how will he use it against, say, Trade Unions, or law-abiding Mexican immigrants or religious minorities - the vast majority of law-abiding American Muslims for example - or Native American-Indian land rights -  the Keystone XL Pipeline - which crosses sacred Indian territories - or across a range of issues which encompass civil and human rights which his Office will have to deal with - and take action about - over the next four years.
 
Your concern, on the left, right or center, should also be how Sessions will approach matters such as freedom of the media, the press and freedom of expression (the right to lawfully protest without fear nor intimidation) freedom of the Judiciary and how likely he would be to stand up for civil and human rights when under pressure from President Trump (who of course has every right to sack his AG if he does not like how he handles any issue.)
 
You can see how Senator Warren was treated (in the clips below.)
 
No doubt you will agree that this is more reminiscent of the Congo, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Sudan or Somalia, than  expected across Christendom - until now that is.
 
 
For your viewing, I am enclosing (below) the full text, not just of Coretta Scott King's letter but also the full accompanying deposition which Senator Warren could never have had the time (nor opportunity) to read out in full at the Senate Confirmation hearing for the Office Of The Attorney General.


©Patrick Emek, February 2017


 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
Here also are two interesting  'takes' on this matter:

 
 
(Please also watch and listen to the clips which immediately follows on from the one above because you
can learn some useful facts about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and other controversial issues.
I hope you agree that this channel is not particularly biased
 
 

 
Posted by at

America's New Attorney General
                                      or
(The Whole World Knows What You Did, Back In 1986, 
Jeff Sessions)
 
In a move reminiscent of a Banana Republic, a sitting United States Senator, Elizabeth Warren, was effectively told to 'shut up' when she attempted to read to Members a letter from the widow of Doctor Martin Luther King about what Jeff Sessions had done to Black people in the 1980s and why it would be unwise to confirm him as Attorney General.
 
I attach a copy of Coretta Scott King's  letter so that you can consider and decide the matter for yourself.
 
The concern I have is with the broader information which Senator Warren did not have the opportunity to read out - Coretta Scott King's sworn deposition - because the Attorney General has literally the power of life or death when deciding how to use the Office with which he is entrusted.
 
If it appears that he has used a lower Public Office of high standing unlawfully in the past, the concern is how will he use it against, say, Trade Unions, or law-abiding Mexican immigrants or religious minorities - the vast majority of law-abiding American Muslims for example - or Native American-Indian land rights -  the Keystone XL Pipeline - which crosses sacred Indian territories - or across a range of issues which encompass civil and human rights which his Office will have to deal with - and take action about - over the next four years.
 
Your concern, on the left, right or center, should also be how Sessions will approach matters such as freedom of the media, the press and freedom of expression (the right to lawfully protest without fear nor intimidation) freedom of the Judiciary and how likely he would be to stand up for civil and human rights when under pressure from President Trump (who of course has every right to sack his AG if he does not like how he handles any issue.)
 
You can see how Senator Warren was treated (in the clips below.)
 
No doubt you will agree that this is more reminiscent of the Congo, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Sudan or Somalia, than  expected across Christendom - until now that is.
 
 
For your viewing, I am enclosing (below) the full text, not just of Coretta Scott King's letter but also the full accompanying deposition which Senator Warren could never have had the time (nor opportunity) to read out in full at the Senate Confirmation hearing for the Office Of The Attorney General.


©Patrick Emek, February 2017


 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Here also are two interesting  'takes' on this matter:
 

 
 
(Please also watch and listen to the clips which immediately follows on from the one above because you
can learn some usefulfacts about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and other controversial issues.
I hope you agree that this channel is not particularly biased
 
 
 
 
Posted by at
America's New Attorney General
                                      or
(The Whole World Knows What You Did, Back In 1986, 
Jeff Sessions)
 
In a move reminiscent of a Banana Republic, a sitting United States Senator, Elizabeth Warren, was effectively told to 'shut up' when she attempted to read to Members a letter from the widow of Doctor Martin Luther King about what Jeff Sessions had done to Black people in the 1980s and why it would be unwise to confirm him as Attorney General.
 
I attach a copy of Coretta Scott King's  letter so that you can consider and decide the matter for yourself.
 
The concern I have is with the broader information which Senator Warren did not have the opportunity to read out - Coretta Scott King's sworn deposition - because the Attorney General has literally the power of life or death when deciding how to use the Office with which he is entrusted.
 
If it appears that he has used a lower Public Office of high standing unlawfully in the past, the concern is how will he use it against, say, Trade Unions, or law-abiding Mexican immigrants or religious minorities - the vast majority of law-abiding American Muslims for example - or Native American-Indian land rights -  the Keystone XL Pipeline - which crosses sacred Indian territories - or across a range of issues which encompass civil and human rights which his Office will have to deal with - and take action about - over the next four years.
 
Your concern, on the left, right or center, should also be how Sessions will approach matters such as freedom of the media, the press and freedom of expression (the right to lawfully protest without fear nor intimidation) freedom of the Judiciary and how likely he would be to stand up for civil and human rights when under pressure from President Trump (who of course has every right to sack his AG if he does not like how he handles any issue.)
 
You can see how Senator Warren was treated (in the clips below.)
 
No doubt you will agree that this is more reminiscent of the Congo, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Sudan or Somalia, than  expected across Christendom - until now that is.
 
 
For your viewing, I am enclosing (below) the full text, not just of Coretta Scott King's letter but also the full accompanying deposition which Senator Warren could never have had the time (nor opportunity) to read out in full at the Senate Confirmation hearing for the Office Of The Attorney General.


©Patrick Emek, February 2017


 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Here also are two interesting  'takes' on this matter:

 
(Please also watch and listen to the clips which immediately follows on from the one above because you
can learn some useful facts about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and other controversial issues.
I hope you agree that this channel is not particularly biased
 
 
 
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive