Friday, December 22, 2017

The ADL, Chief Sargent, and Terrorism


The ADL, Chief Sargent, and Terrorism
   
     

The Anti Defamation League (ADL) has granted the City of Worcester money to send its police chief, Steven Sargent, to Israel purportedly to study “counterterrorism”. It also paid for officials from other New England communities to Israeli seminar as well.
I am against individualistic acts of terror and I have spent a large part of my adult life opposing the tactics of the Weather Unground and fascist groups.
The value of Chief Sargent’s trip is questionable in terms of preventing so called terrorist attacks in Worcester.  The situations and material conditions in Worcester are significantly dissimilar than those found in Israel.  Israel has militarily occupied Palestine and is blockading Gaza. The Palestinians live under military rule without some basic human and civil rights.
                                                                Chief Sargent

In Worcester there is a significant demographic change from a mostly White population to a mostly dark skin and immigrant population. Legally everyone in Worcester is protected by the U.S. Constitution. There are no known credible threats of mass killing or terrorism.
Reports from the Justice Department are that there is a greater threat of killings by Nazis and other White supremacists than by Al Qaeda or ISIS. Despite this fact the City of Worcester does not have a policy for making known to the public incidents of so called Hate crimes. The Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council have all ignored the demands of the public for such information.
It would be a reasonable request that the Chief and the City follow its own policy of “See something: say something” and seek the input of public hearings based on an annual report about Hate crime incidents.
Although I do not think it intentional, it seems to be the case that the Police Chief and the City has been played by the ADL. The ADL has been criticized for it blind support of the Israeli government. It has been criticized for its abandonment of civil rights issues in the United States.
 The ADL has been something of an ally in the fight against Nazism, especially when it concerns Jewish people. I welcome its help in the fight against Fascism in the United States. Nonetheless I expect some to play the race card and call me anti-Semitic.
Given the condemnation of the Trump administration anti-Palestinian policies, has the ADL cynically colluded with the President to involve the City of Worcester and others on the wrong side of an international dispute? The City of Worcester has a policy which it refuses to involve itself with anything that does not directly affect the City. For example it refused to allow a vote on the Iraq War even though residents of Worcester were killed and the City lost tax revenues.

                                                              Protesters at City council

This might be the time for the City to review its policy on Hate crimes and on accepting money from what some would say is agents of a foreign government. Public Hearing on Hate crimses is long overdue.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Thomas, Clinton, and Me Too




Thomas, Clinton, and Me Too   

Thomas


In the early 1990s Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. He had after his graduation from the College of the Holy Cross married a Black women from Worcester MA and they had a son. 

At the time of his nomination. Justice Thomas had divorced his wife and married a White woman. This was not unusual and some Black people would say that he had the “fever”. A term that meant that some Black men preferred White woman. Although many think it is a loving marriage, other thought it to be a sign of his rejection of the aspirations of Black people.

While at Holy Cross Thomas was very respectful of Black women. He had a theory that Black women became lesbians in reaction to being mistreated by Black men. Because of this I was surprised when Anita Hill complained that she was the victim of sexual harassment by Thomas. 

What convinced me she was telling the truth was her testimony that Thomas jokingly said “Isn’t that pubic hair on that coke can?”.  He had said the same to me and others while at Holy Cross.  Ms. Hill also testified that Mr. Thomas would talk of about large penises. Mr. Thomas at Holy Cross used to say that Black men from Georgia who ate ham had penises so long that they had to strap them to their legs.

It was something of an irony when Mr. Thomas played the race card in his defense against Ms. Hill.

Clinton


There is no doubt that Bill Clinton was a cheat, a womanizer, and a liar. Clinton’s victims, Flowers, Lewinsky, and other are looked down upon by many in society. I would like to hear arguments that President Clinton is not a narcissist, using the pretense of helping poor people to further his fame and fortune. His real legacy is mass incarceration of Black people and adversely reducing the safety net of the unemployed, the poor, and the homeless.

 I voted for him in 1992 and again in 1996. My vote was motivated by the concept that “It is the economy, stupid”. I have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate subsequently.

Curiously Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player for the Philadelphia 76ers, got it right. Shortly after Doug Jones won the senate seat in Alabama, Barkley said that the Democratic Party should no longer take Black working people and the poor for granted.

It is ironic that presidential candidate  Al Gore, about whom I have heard nothing bad, lost his presidential bid due in large part to the impeachment of President Clinton for his role in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton like Nixon should have resigned and allowed Gore to be President before the 2000 election.

Also ironic is how Secretary Hilary Clinton came to be seen as an enabler of a asexual harasser, instead of a “good wife”. President Clinton’s actions negatively impacted many people he should have protected.

Such a resignation was never in the character of a narcissist womanizer.

Me Too



The “Me Too” movement has brought weight to the complaints by women of sexual harassment. Women had little credibility before the “Me Too” movement. Even when women were believed very few people cared, Just ask Paula Jones and Anita Hill. This trend of not caring, upsettingly was continued by many Trump supporters. President Trump has many accusers and a taped admission of his intentions to wrongfully sexually harass women.

Conclusion


The “Me Too “movement success will be measured by its success against Presidents, such as President Trump and President Clinton. Another measure of its success will be how seriously society takes the complaints of sexual harassment, especially the allegations made by dark skin women.    

Saturday, December 9, 2017

PRESIDENTIAL TREASON


THE TREASONS OF PRESIDENTS



Acts of War
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was an Act of War. This attack has been defined by convention and treaty to be a hostile act of war. It fits the concept of an attack via sea, land, air by opposing states.

The attack on the twin towers was at the time something new. It was an attack by a new kind of entity that does not fit the definition of a “state” or a “nation. The United States had to create new and still disputed definitions of an act of war, states, soldiers, and other legal concepts in order to go to war in Afghanistan and create the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

 

In 2016 the United States government considered the cyber-attacks by Russia and others to be hostile acts. These attacks were unrecognized in law as acts of war. No convention or codes has been developed to cover cyber war.


There has been a de facto cyber war between the 

United States and Russia, but the law lags behind. The American response was that of certain diplomatic and economic sanctions.


Treason

 Section 110 of Article III of the Constitution 
of the United States, declares that:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason."

It is likely that President Trump committed
 treason against the United States if he 
negotiated and colluded with the Russian 
government regarding the sanctions imposed 
on it by President Obama. It is important to 
note that the United States and the Russian 
governments are in a cyber war.

  


Donald Trump
The ongoing cyber war includes cyber-attacks on the United States’ elections and a retaliation by the United States. Presidential candidate Trump’s campaign in 2016 aided and comforted (if true) Russia in it levying a cyber war on the United States by negating the retaliatory sanctions imposed by President Obama.
Special prosecutor Mueller seems to be developing at least two witnesses’ testimony against President Trump’s possible treason. This treason occurred before President Trump took office, while he was a private citizen.
Presidential candidate Trump was not the first American presidential candidate to have been accused of treason. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were also alleged to have committed treason in order to win their respective presidential elections.



Richard Nixon
Nixon interfered with President Johnson’s negotiations for a cease fire in 1968. Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese government to boycott the cease fire talks. By doing this Presidential candidate Nixon violated President John Adams' 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.

Nixon’s interference was likely treason because the United States was at war and the delays caused by Nixon led to many seemingly unnecessary deaths which aided and comfort the North Vietnamese government.




Ronald Reagan

It has been alleged that Presidential candidate Ronald 

Reagan entered into negotiations with Iran delaying the 

release of the American hostages.It is disputed that Ronald 

Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign negotiated a secret 

deal with Iran to prevent the release of American hostages 

until after the 1980 presidential election.

One of the accusers is Gary Sick, a Middle East specialist 
who helped handle the Iranian hostage crisis as a member of 
the White House staff in the Carter Administration. Mr. Sick
 said in a New York Times editorial that he heard what he 
considers to be reliable reports that a secret deal involving 
the hostages was begun during two meetings between an 
agent representing Reagan and the Iranian cleric in a Madrid
 hotel in July 1980.The hostages held by Iran were not 
released until after the 1980 elections. They were released on 
January 20, 1981 just a few minutes after Reagan was 
inaugurated.

Final Thoughts


President Johnson did not reveal Nixon’s treason in order to

spare the country more divisiveness during wartime. There

apparently was not enough evidence against Reagan to bring

 charges he delayed the release of the American hostages in 

Iran.



With President Trump the circumstances seem to be that he 

has very powerful enemies.  His nemeses have set upon him a 
bulldog of a prosecutor, Robert Mueller. President Trump is 

likely to face the same fate as Richard Nixon.