#Donald Trump and his adminnaistration will be remembered as the most scandalous president and administration in the U.S. history

[kj1966-blog]

The main reason why I don’t like Political Correctness is that it has an ability to silence the truth.

I don’t have any proof but I suspect that political correctness was created by those who came from the middle of nowhere and camouflaged themselves as a living fragment of so-called High Society.

Somehow they managed to sell their hypersensitive attitude as highly refined manners. I assume that it was their defence against a sharp and truthful sense of humour.

Since fake individuals, in general, do not have a sense of humour, this camouflage protected them from being exposed.

At one point fake individuals realized that people buy their fiction. Therefore, they embark on an aggressive promotion campaign began to aggressively promote the idea that for the sake of “right” attitude it must be not acceptable to say anything which contains razor-sharp truth.

To support this view, fake individuals said that we must be respectful to those for whom such truth is nothing but pain.

It seems that it was their second victory which boosted fake people’s confidence and accelerated the growth of Political Correctness’ dominance.

What people failed to understand is that there is no such thing as High Society. Because if there is High Society, there must be Low Society. People who admire artificially created terms, cannot see that they are those who represent Low Society.

Only people with low self-esteem would accept it.

If we look back a few things, besides the fact that we went through “wear & tear” process, look very different today.

In the 60s and 70s, the world of entertainment was filled with enormously talented people.

As soon as we heard the first chords, we found out who was singing. Even today those songs are very relevant and appeal to people of all generations. Deep Purple, Lets Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Tina Turner, Cher, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles and many more.

But even the 80s and the 90s were represented by a number of talented people: Madonna, Michael Jackson (he became famous earlier but to me, he symbolizes the 80s, Prince, Whitney Houston, and many others.

What about cinematography? Doctor Zhivago, Easy Rider, Guess Who’s Comming To Dinner, Psycho and zillion more. Truly talented actors who are stilled loved by people around the world.

The same goes for literature: The Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov; The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Eric Carle; Catch-22, Joseph Heller; The Crying of Lot 49, Thomas Pynchon; Ragtime, E.L.Doctorow and many more.

And it was not only about entertainment or literature. So many other incredible events happened during that period: Yuri Gagarin becomes the first human being to travel into space. Apollo 11 blasted off on July 16, 1969. Neil Armstrong, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin and Michael Collins were the astronauts on Apollo 11 and four days later, Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon.

And, of course, it would be a crime against humanity not to mention remarkable personalities who are the face of that period of time. Rosa Louise Parks, although it happened in 1955 when she refused to surrender her seat to a white male passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, it would be not fair not to mention her because her heroic actions triggered a wave of protest. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

Andrei Sakharov, a Soviet Union’s nuclear physicist, dissident, and activist for disarmament, peace and human rights. He played a key role in the development of the first megaton-range Soviet hydrogen bomb using a design known as Sakharov’s Third Idea in Russia and the Teller–Ulam design in the United States. But when he realized the scale of the danger his creation represents he condemned Soviet development of thermonuclear weapons faced state persecution; these efforts earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975.

Boeing 747 100 First Flight

Many other events happened during that time, including the Boeing 747 is an American wide-body commercial jet airliner and cargo aircraft, often referred to by its original nickname, “Jumbo Jet”, the world’s most recognizable aircraft and it was the first wide-body produced. Since its first commercial flight on January 21, 1970, with Pan Am, the 747 has dominated the wide-body market for 37 years.

The main point is that people were well read and well-informed. They were politically active. It doesn’t mean that they dd not know how to have fun because they were boring. Actually, it was quite opposite. They knew how to have fun. And fun they had :).

But people also knew how to balance their social life with their obligations as citizens.

On October 21, 1967, one of the most prominent anti-war demonstrations took place. After a brutal confrontation with the soldiers and U.S. Marshals protecting the building, hundreds of demonstrators were arrested.

Also in 1967, the anti-war movement got a big boost when the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. went public with his opposition to the war on moral grounds, condemning the war’s diversion of federal funds from domestic programs as well as the disproportionate number of African-American casualties in relation to the total number of soldiers killed in the war.

Joining the anti-war demonstrations by this time were members of the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, many of whom were in wheelchairs and on crutches. The sight of these men on television throwing away the medals they had won during the war did much to win people over to the anti-war cause.

Tensions ran higher than ever, spurred on by mass demonstrations and incidents of official violence such those at Kent State in May 1970, when National Guard troops shot into a group of protesters demonstrating against the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, killing four students.

In mid-1971, the publication of the first Pentagon Papers–which revealed previously confidential details about the war’s conduct. More and more Americans questioned the accountability of the U.S. government. In response to a strong anti-war mandate, Nixon announced the effective end to U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia in January 1973. Nixon’s resignation was also possible only because of the public pressure.

Then things started to change. Without going much into details, I assume that the process of decline started when the balance between citizens’ obligation and time to have fun has been disturbed.

On August 1, 1981, history was made when MTV, the first 24-hour video music channel, launched onto our television sets and literally changed our lives with the birth of the music video.

Although reality TV was first introduced in the 1940s, it didn’t really take off until 1990s when it became popular and it’s popularity continues with accelerating speed. Perhaps reality TV had to wait so long because people were intellectually developed. Smart people wouldn’t want to spend hours of their own life watching how other people enjoy theirs. But by 1990, the public was already prepared for it.

As far as I recall, this was the time when High Society reached the peak of its popularity. People who perceived as representatives of High Society automatically became stars.

Although I must say that to me, these individuals are more like bulbs 20w under powerful lights at a scene during the shooting of reality TV episodes rather than stars. They simply have no ability to reach those heights for them to be called stars.

Reality TV produced Paris Hilton, the first woman who became famous for nothing. I guess that obsession with material stuff started to rise about the same time.

As far as I recall, this was the time when High Society reached the peak of its popularity.

The number of incredible movies started to decline as well. More and more movies about artificial intelligence, distant future or worlds as well as absolutely meaningless creations which show that laws of physics are no longer apply, gradually started to replace movies about us, humans, our issues, our worries, emotions, tragedies and happy moments.

I think that even comedians have changed. The last Great Comedian of 20th and 21st Centuries, in my opinion, was Joan Rivers.

The only one who can stand close to her is Kathy Griffin. But we all know what fake people did to her. They punished her for not committed a crime. Her entire crime was that he caused pain to hypersensitive idiots.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Entertainment is no longer entertaining. Many signers have little talent. They sound the same, look the same.

Songs lyrics are hard to call lyrics. One of them worth to mention.

DJ Aligator �� The Whistle Song … Blow my whistle, baby Blow my whistle, baby open up and put it in Let’s begin Blow it like you mean it, blow Let me hear ya say, woo-woo Louder, woo-woo Let me hear ya say, woo-woo Louder, woo-woo Is that what you call loud?

I was driving when I heard it for the first time and I barely escaped collision with a car in front of me. I couldn’t believe what I hear. It is a song about a blowjob! Aired on RADIO!!!

If previously people admired their idols, today idols are being worshipped. There is a big difference between admiration and obsession. Admiration is healthy and obsession is nothing but mental obesity.

Same goes for literature. It is difficult to imagine that Fifty Shades of Grey could have got so much media attention in the 60s or the 70s. Because then people knew what is love and what is not.

***

The process of deterioration progressed incredibly slow and properly marketed. Therefore, it could be the reason why it went undetected on for a while.

I assume that the first alarming sings started to pop us in 2001 after tragic events in New York when under a cover of the war on terror civil liberties of American people started to shrink.

Truth is seldom looking good. Very often it is so ugly that even Donald Trump would look not so bad compared to the truth.

But despite its ugly appearance, the truth delivers a very important message. The truth tries to warn us about troubles ahead.

Instead of being scared o its appearance, we should treat truth like our closest friend.

Meanwhile, we also need to show Political Correctness in a very polite manner how to get to the door.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS SHOULDN’T BE CONFUSED WITH GOOD MANNERS BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE TO SILENCE THE TRUTH: Therefore, SCREW Political Correctness. (Half True & Half Fiction) The main reason why I don't like Political Correctness is that it has an ability to silence the truth.

[kj1966-blog]

It seems that the system of checks and balances has deteriorated to its core.

Trump blocked the release a Democratic memo rebutting GOP claims that the FBI abused its surveillance authority as it probed Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Instead, he has directed the Justice Department to work with lawmakers so some form of the document could be made public.

According to the Washington Post, in a letter to the House Intelligence Committee, White House counsel Donald McGahn wrote that the Justice Department had identified portions of the Democrats’ memo that it believed “would create especially significant concerns for the national security and law enforcement interests” if disclosed. McGahn included in his note a letter from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray supporting that claim.

Last week, Donald Trump authorized the release of the Republican version of the memo, which claimed the FBI improperly obtained a warrant to spy on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, and his connections to Russia.

Trump’s approval for the release was given despite FBI’s objections. On 31 January, the FBI stipulated in a statement: “We have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

However, there were no objections from the FBI regarding Democrats’ memo. In fact, the FBI declined to comment on the Democrats’ memo.

Ironically, The House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously Monday to release the memo.

Official explanation provided by the White House doesn’t make any sense because even the FBI warnings did not change Trump’s decision.

The US constitutional system includes a notion known as the Separation of Powers. In this system, several branches of government are created and power is shared between them. At the same time, the powers of one branch can be challenged by another branch. This is what the system of checks and balances is all about.

There are three branches of the United States government as established by the Constitution. First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other.

Although Separation of Powers is stipulated in the Constitution, it appears that such separation is just a redundant formality.

Branches of the government are not willing to challenge each other. Moreover, it looks like their actions are well-synchronized.

Donald Trump is no longer trying to hide that his actions are nothing but obstructions of justice. Despite his limited intellectual capacity, he has learned that people are going to take anything he does. They, perhaps, would scream for a while but eventually, they’ll get used to it.

When people tolerate something unacceptable, they may need to learn that such “unacceptable” starts from small but it is not going to remain small for long.

For quite sometimes Trump was firing people, issuing harmful executive orders, etc. But when people talked about it, the conversation did not go further than the limits of authority.

But the limits of authority is not automatic. When someone is fired or harmful regulation is issued it must be supported by rational arguments.

Without rational, it might not be call limits of authority. Instead, it might be called abuse of power. And if so, appropriate measures should be taken.

Trump’s decision to block the release of Democrats memo is not supported by rational. Nevertheless, there is no sign that any measures are planned to be taken.

It applies not only to Trump but also those who don’t want to do their job – the Republicans.

It is not up to them whether to impeach Trump. If there are facts supporting the impeachment, it is their responsibility/obligation, not discretion, to initiate the process.

Such despicable lack of actions on the Republicans part means that they refuse to carry out their duties, to say the least. However, it might also mean that they breach the law.

It is difficult to find another country whereby laws are violated so publically and shamelessly by members of all branches of the government on the almost daily basis.

Questions: Are laws are still legal in the United States? I am not asking whether laws are effective because it appears that the entire US legislation is being suspended.

IF THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR BLOCK CERTAIN EVENTS, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE/SHE CAN DO IT WITHOUT PROVIDING CONVINCING REASONS TO SUPPORT A DECISION: Donald Trump’s reasons to block the release of Democrats’ memo are not convincing. It seems that the system of checks and balances has deteriorated to its core. Trump blocked the release a Democratic memo rebutting GOP claims that the FBI abused its surveillance authority as it probed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

[kj1966-blog]

EACH DAY OF DONALD TRUMP IN POWER DELIVERS A GREATER DAMAGE. It looks like the United States is being attacked on all fronts: political, economy, healthcare and infrastructure.

[kj1966-blog]

IT SEEMS THAT LIES BROADCASTED DAILY BY FOX MIGHT BE MORE THAN JUST A BREACH OF FCC RULES.

After weeks of buildup, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and fervent supporter of President Trump, has released a divisive memo about the surveillance of a former adviser to the Trump campaign. After Trump declassified it, Nunes made public a four-page document written by his staff, accusing the Department of Justice and the FBI (a part of the Department of…

[kj1966-blog]

TO AVOID CATASTROPHE, AMERICANS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FACE THE TRUTH: Only then it would be possible to fix the problem. But American people have to act now because time works against them.

Sometimes we need to hit a rock bottom to start coming up. Therefore, we should treat a bad news with respect because it might be an important message which explains that we went too far.

Not so long time ago a published compromising information about an affair or sexual orientation of a politician could have ended his or her political career.  It seems that days of high standards in the American…

[kj1966-blog]

When it comes to Trump-Russia investigation, many experts highlight that it is essential to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump had a specific intent.

Of course, intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. It is also true that to prove the intent is not an easy task.

LegalFlip

Nevertheless, the scale of difficulty differs depending on the type of crime. Sometimes an attempt is a crime that requires an act, done with the specific intent to commit a crime that falls short of completing the actual crime.

Conspiracy is a crime that requires some type of agreement between at least two individuals with the specific intent to both enter into the agreement and to achieve a certain goal of the agreement. In other words, two or more individuals must agree to commit some crime and take some concrete step in carrying out the crime.

For example, if John and Ted agree to rob a bank, and John goes and buys masks for the robbery and Ted picks up John and drives him to the bank with the intent to rob the bank – they are both guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank (even before either of them enters the bank).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If we take a closer look at the entire chain of events, besides other facts, the firing of then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and then-FBI Director James Comey are possibly the most remarkable events which display Trump’s intent.

  In January 2017, Sally Yates met with White House counsel McGahn to warn him the Justice Department has evidence, via the FBI surveillance, that Michael Flynn, then-national security advisor, was vulnerable to blackmail.

A few days after her meeting, Sally Yates was fired. The reason given by the White House is her decision to instruct Justice Department attorneys not to defend his immigration restrictions.

On 27th January, Donald Trump arranges a dinner with then-FBI Director James Comey, where, according to Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the president says: “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.”

Comey said he felt like the dinner was an effort on the part of the president to have him ask for his job and “create some sort of patronage relationship.”

  The very next day, according to Comey, he visited the Oval Office for a meeting with Trump and advisers. Afterward, the president cleared the room of everyone except him and the FBI director. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Comey says Trump said.

      Trump and Putin, via family members

  Since James Comey worked for Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General had to recuse himself. And Sessions’ recusal drove Trump nuts.

In mid-March, Trump has a private meeting with Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Trump asks Coats to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to “back off its focus” on Flynn in regard to the Russia investigation, according to The Washington Post.

  On May 9, Trump fires Comey, saying in an interview two days later that the FBI director was a “showboat” and a “grandstander.”

This is significant: A person can commit obstruction without there having been an underlying crime to conceal. So even if, as Trump maintains, he and his aides did nothing wrong and did not conspire with the Russians who attacked the election, they still could be in trouble over the actions that culminated in Comey’s dismissal.

    Trump and Putin via Administration Officials

  “Attempted obstruction is obstruction,” constitutional lawyer and Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe told Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, “even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him.”

If this is not enough to prove intent of Donald Trump to obstruct justice due to his alleged involvement in much heavier criminal activities, perhaps “criminal negligence” could be helpful.

Criminal negligence requires that the person exercised a “gross” or “aggravated” deviation from acceptable societal norms.  In other words, the conduct must have some element of an unjustifiable disregard of standards in order for it to be considered criminal.

To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinarily prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences.

As the “reasonable person” standard is an objective benchmark by which an individual is judged, only in cases involving mental and physical disabilities can there be room for reinterpretation.  If the individual, due to disability cannot foresee how his or her actions will lead to serious consequences and a breach of the standard of care, then that case may be open to reinterpretation.

It is not possible to imagine that Donald Trump or any member of his campaign couldn’t understand that their meetings and communications with the Russian officials could lead to certain negative consequences for the United States.

It seems that whichever angle we look at it, Donald Trump appears to have committed a crime or crimes.

WHICHEVER ANGLE WE LOOK AT IT, DONALD TRUMP SEEMS TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. When it comes to Trump-Russia investigation, many experts highlight that it is essential to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump had a specific intent.

[kj1966-blog]

Recently, the world has learned that situation with human rights in the United States is quite disturbing. Facts suggest that the United States does not meet this requirement as the 2016 US presidential elections have demonstrated that majority votes aren’t the decisive factor.

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is the key international guarantee of voting rights and free elections, but its provisions are strongly related to other articles, specifically Article 2. The ICCPR also includes guarantees of freedom of expression (Article 19), assembly (Article 21), association (Article 22), and non-discrimination (Article 26).

  kjworldwidecitizen.blog

  ICCPR, Article 25: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

In the US every state gets a certain number of votes depending partly on the size of its population. The way it’s worked out means there’s a minimum of three votes per state.

kjworldwidecitizen.blog

Besides striking discrepancies of the existing voting system with ICCPR requirements, it appears as the United States law does not comply with another international requirement – equality before the law.

 Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

In May 2017, Newsweek questioned whether the commander in chief is above the law has come into play in recent days amid accusations that President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice when he allegedly asked former FBI Director James Comey in February if he would “let go” of the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The New York Times wrote that the Constitution does not answer every question. It includes detailed instructions, for instance, about how Congress may remove a president who has committed serious offences. But it does not say whether the president may be criminally prosecuted in the meantime.

  kjworldwidecitizen.blog

  But Quora looks at the matter from a different angle. It says that if the President commits an actual crime, then by definition such an action is outside the execution of the office and subject to prosecution. There are no provisions in the Constitution which make the President immune to prosecution for an actual crime that they might commit, either while in office or out of office.

According to Quora, the executive privilege only applies to actions taken within the legal execution of the duties of the office and would apply to those actions after the President has left office.

Alexander Hamilton seemed to read the provision exactly that way: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

That means you can’t indict and try a sitting president. He has to be removed first.

It sounds logical as every person must assume responsibility and face legal consequences regardless of social or financial status, race, gender, etc.

However, it might not be the case when it comes to the US Law.

What happens if the president is convicted by the Senate? Here’s the constitutional answer:

Chicago Tribune highlighted that a reasonable interpretation of this provision is that it sets out a temporal sequence: Impeachment, then conviction and removal from office — and only after that, indictment, trial, judgment and punishment.

Alexander Hamilton seemed to read the provision exactly that way: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But it means that the President of the United States could be liable to prosecution only after he is impeached.

The “happy end” of Nixon’s case was possible only because the Republican Party was not in close to total control.

  kjworldwidecitizen.blog

  Today, when Republicans control both Houses it is unlikely that Donald Trump could face impeachment.

Moreover, Nixon has resigned as it was clear that he could be impeached. But does it also mean that the US Law equalizes resignation and prosecution?

The reality shows that despite so many facts suggesting that Donald Trump and members of his presidential campaign might have been involved in illegal activities, there is still no sign that the impeachment is going to take place soon.

  If any other US citizen would be exposed to 10% of what we know about Donald Trump, the person could be charged and prosecuted the moment compromising information became available to the public.

It is also unlikely that the person’s willingness to resign would be treated as the equivalent of a jail time by law enforcement authorities.

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the effective legislation of the United States does not support another fundamental element of democracy – equality before the law.

      EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: The Effective Legislation of the United States Does Not Agree With One of the Fundamental Principles of Democracy. Recently, the world has learned that situation with human rights in the United States is quite disturbing.

[kj1966-blog]

WHAT IS BEHIND TRUMP-RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP: Lifting sanctions might not be the ultimate goal There are so many facts showing a high level of likelihood that collusion took place and Donald Trump was “helped” to become the President of the United States.

[kj1966-blog]

Quality of life is dependent on the effectiveness of order in the society. If rules promote mutual respect and equality before the law, it creates an inclusive society and significantly reduces hate crimes statistics.

Despite the general perception that the United States of America is the land of free, it may have little to do with reality.

For the international community, the discrepancy between perception and reality started to surface at the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. “They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

On 11th of November 2016, BBC reported that dozens of alleged hate crimes have surfaced on social media in the wake of the election of Donald Trump. BBC questioned whether hate crimes spiked after Trump’s victory?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

ON 14th November 2017, The Independent reported that the number of hate crimes in America spiked last year for the first time after years of decline, according to new FBI data.

According to The Independent, the number of hate crimes in 2016 jumped by nearly 300 reported cases compared to the year prior, with 6,121 incidents reported the FBI last year compared to 5,850 in 2015.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Independent highlights that it is a concerning spike that defies a trend since the agency first began recording data on the type of crime in 1992. There were 8,759 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 1996, for instance, even though there were more police departments that participated in that particular survey.

If a number of factual evidence suggest that Donald Trump might be the reason for the hate crime spikes why no legal consequences followed? Is it because the US law does not recognize a speech that leads to such spike as a crime?

Apparently, there are views that hate speech itself is not a crime.

On 20th February 2017, WBUR reported that the right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopolous has come under fire on college campuses and elsewhere for expressing views that some call hate speech.

According to Santa Clara University law professor Margaret Russell, if someone is speaking in a way and in a context in which they’re encouraging violence that could be imminent, and they are intentionally trying to bring that about, that is known as incitement, and that is not protected speech.”

Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson speaks with Santa Clara University law professor Margaret Russell about what the legal rules on hate speech are.

I am not an expert in the US Law but it is difficult to agree with Margaret Russell’s opinion.

  First, I am not sure whether it is possible to identify with 100% accuracy whether a racially charged statement could imminently lead to a violence. Since it is not humanly possible, using it as a basis for qualification whether or not such statement is a crime doesn’t make any sense.

Having said that, a number of other factors may be used to identify whether it is highly possible that the outcome of such statement could be harmful to another person or group of people.

Second, generally, it is difficult to imagine that racist statements could be made in order to maintain a conversation. When a person expresses views which are racist by their nature, it is done for a reason. Together with reason comes the intent.

Third, I am surprised by Margaret Russell’s interpretation of the Law.

  On 10th December 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Elonis v. the United States, a case that asks what a “true threat” is. In prior cases, the High Court has said that true threats may be criminally punished, notwithstanding the First Amendment protection for the freedom of speech. In Elonis, the question is whether the person who utters a true threat must subjectively intend to bring about fear of bodily harm or death or whether it is enough that a reasonable person uttering the words in the context would foresee that his words would be interpreted as such a threat.

In the case before the Court, the question breaks down into two parts: (1) Did Congress require intent in the statute under which Anthony Elonis was prosecuted and convicted, 18 U.S.C. §875(c); and (2) Regardless of what the statute provides, does the First Amendment right of free speech require that only a person intending to cause fear with his threatening utterances be subject to criminal penalties? In this column, I will examine the second, constitutional, question in light of the reason that we exclude true threats from protection for speech under the First Amendment.

  The Supreme Court on “True Threats” and the First Amendment

In the Supreme Court’s Virginia v. Black case addressing the question of true threats, it used some language that supports Elonis’s position. It said that “[i]ntimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” (emphasis added) The Justices also rejected a jury instruction that would have allowed the jurors to infer an intent to intimidate solely on the basis of the fact that the defendant burned a cross.

Once we understand that a threat is essentially a bad act rather than a failed attempt at completing a different bad act (i.e. the threatened behavior), it makes little sense to have responsibility turn on what the actor’s real purpose was in uttering the words that he or she uttered. One could certainly rank the threatening words as more or less culpable, depending on the speaker’s intentions, just as we rank intentional murder more seriously than negligent homicide. But some criminal responsibility—and the corresponding exception to the First Amendment protection for free speech—ought to match up with the harmfulness of the conduct.

It is also important to remember that in 2009, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanding the federal definition of hate crimes, enhancing the legal toolkit available to prosecutors, and increasing the ability of federal law enforcement to support our state and local partners.

  the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

  This law removed then existing jurisdictional obstacles to prosecutions of a certain race- and religion-motivated violence.,, and added new federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation.  Before the Civil Rights Division prosecutes a hate crime, the Attorney General or someone the Attorney General designates must certify, in writing, that (1) the state does not have jurisdiction; (2) the state has requested that the federal government assume jurisdiction; (3) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges did not demonstratively vindicate the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (4) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.  In the seven years since the passage of the Shepard-Byrd Act, the Justice Department has charged 72 defendants and convicted 45 defendants under this statute.  In total, as of July 15, 2016, the department has charged 258 defendants for hate crimes under multiple statutes over the last seven years.

By going through reports on the Supreme Court’s cases and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act I couldn’t find anything which would suggest that hate speech should lead to “imminent” harm. Instead, the Supreme Court made very clear that as long as there is a good reason to think that potentially harm could be done is good enough to qualify it as a crime.

But the ultimate question is not whether Santa Clara University law professor’s interpretation is grossly misleading.

The question I would like to ask is why legal actions were not taken against Donald Trump despite a numerous and well recorded factual evidence lead to only one logical conclusion.

Donald Trump might have breached the US laws by delivering a number of hate speeches that could possibly be the reason why there is a spike in hate crimes.

When laws do not apply equally, chances to create inclusive society vanish. Lack of equality before the law also establishes a dangerous precident. When a crime is left unpunished it legitimizes the crime.

It also revokes the “license” for such society to be called “the land of free”. Because freedom without the order and equal rights is not a freedom. It is chaos.

    HATE SPEECH: The Supreme Court on “True Threats” and the First Amendment Quality of life is dependent on the effectiveness of order in the society. If rules promote mutual respect and equality before the law, it creates an inclusive society and significantly reduces hate crimes statistics.

[kj1966-blog]

DONALD TRUMP IS BEING GROOMED TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY: MSNBC News The American society is in real danger. And as crazy as it might sound, the danger comes from the US president.

[kj1966-blog]

THE WHITE HOUSE IS NO LONGER WHAT IT USED TO BE: New attacks on civil rights, Trump’s tax scam, Trump’s long-standing relationship with criminal groups Donald Trump administration continues dismantling the U.S. democracy. This time, it is about civil rights of American citizens.

[kj1966-blog]

Usually, people express their support for an individual and develop a friendship with those whom they have a lot in common.

It is also common that people would try to stay away from someone who has a shady reputation because any association with such person may affect their reputation.

The latest report by Politico shows clearly that when people support a person who has no moral compass, a liar, it only means that such people are no different from him or her.

    Today it is not possible to miss information on major political events or public personas. It is virtually impossible to miss a new piece of information if such persona is Donald Trump.

Due to Trump’s numerous false statements, it was clear from the very beginning that Trump is someone who cannot be trusted.

Although it is not an excuse, the fact that Donald Trump was elected as the US president could be explained. People were confused and frustrated as they couldn’t explain why living standards continued to deteriorate.

But after 11 months of Trump’s presidency, even that frustration stepped aside for most of those who voted for him.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

By now it is impossible to continue supporting Donald Trump unless those still support him do associate themselves with him – a person with no moral compass and a liar.

      The US society has to do a major “spring cleaning”. It is not a choice but rather the obligation of the American people.

Due to the status of the United States, both politically and economically, it is not just unfair to hold the entire world hostage. It is irresponsible.

      THE U.S. SOCIETY NEEDS A MAJOR “SPRING CLEANING” Usually, people express their support for an individual and develop a friendship with those whom they have a lot in common.

[kj1966-blog]

The Institute of Taxation and Economics (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides timely, in-depth analyses on the effects of federal, state, and local tax policies.

ITEP published a report titled “The Final Trump-GOP Tax Plan: National and 50-State Estimates for 2019 & 2027” whereby it highlights that the Republicans final tax bill would provide most of its benefits to high-income households and foreign investors while raising taxes on many low- and middle-income Americans. The bill would go into effect in 2018 but the provisions directly affecting families and individuals would all expire after 2025, with the exception of one provision that would raise their taxes.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

According to ITEP, in 2019, the bottom three-fifths of Americans will receive smaller average tax cuts, as a share of income, than other groups. In 2027 the bottom three-fifths of Americans will see tax hikes, on average, while the typical households in one of the other groups will continue to receive tax cuts, albeit smaller ones.

The report shows that in 2019, the average impact for the middle-fifth of taxpayers will be a tax cut of $800. The richest one percent of taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of more than $55,000. The average tax cut for richest one percent in 2019 will be larger than the average income for the middle-fifth of taxpayers, which will be about $53,000 that year.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Chicago Tribune reports that the bill was supposed to deliver benefits predominantly to average working families, not corporations, with a 35% tax cut Trump proposed on the campaign trail as part of the “Middle-Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act.”

“The largest tax reductions are for the middle class, who have been forgotten,” Trump said in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 22, 2016.

According to Bloomberg, middle-income groups will get a tax cut although some individual households will likely pay higher taxes because of provisions that include the elimination of personal exemptions and a limit on state and local tax deductions.

Bloomberg confirms that the greatest benefit is for corporations. The corporate rate cut will cost $1.35 trillion over the next 10 years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. That’s more than the estimated $1.2 trillion from individual rate cuts. Moreover, the plan’s corporate tax cuts are permanent. Most individual changes — including those for owners of pass-through businesses — expire after 2025. One change that won’t go away: The bill imposes a new annual adjustment mechanism that will push Americans into higher tax brackets more rapidly.

Los Angeles Times highlights that generous tax cuts for the wealthy, including a reduction of the top individual tax rate. More modest cuts for anyone who makes less than $200,000 or so.

It is still difficult to explain why people who voted for Donald Trump thought that he could improve their financial positions.

A person who lies all the time cannot be trusted.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

  A PERSON WHO LIES ALL THE TIME CANNOT BE TRUSTED: Analysis of ITEP Shows That The Republican Tax Bill Provides Most of Its Benefits to High-Income Households & Foreign Investors The Institute of Taxation and Economics (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides timely, in-depth analyses on the effects of federal, state, and local tax policies.

[kj1966-blog]

LET’S CALL THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE: The Republican Party is #1 Enemy of The Nation Republicans continue to attack Robert Mueller claiming that the obtained emails were obtained illegally. According to Reuters…

[kj1966-blog]

Stupidity is the most expensive thing in the world. Because to fix the damage caused by stupid people, would require a lot of money, efforts and time. However, some damages may be beyond repair.

***

Bloomberg reports that Donald Trump insisted Wednesday that his tax cut is all about helping the middle class even as Republican leaders formed a last-minute plan to cut the top rate paid by million-dollar earners.

According to Bloomberg, two Republican senators have criticized tax cuts for the highest earners: Susan Collins of Maine and Marco Rubio of Florida. Together, their opposition could kill the bill — though it’s by no means clear that either would withhold support over the latest plan for high-end rate relief. Still, as GOP leaders hustle to fashion compromise legislation for votes next week, Collins and Rubio may provide some drama.

Rubio tweeted: “20.94% Corp. rate to pay for tax cut for working family making $40k was anti-growth but 21% to cut tax for couples making $1 million is fine?” In a follow-up tweet, he shared an opinion article that decried his party’s decision as “A Slap in the Face to Families.”

CNN reports that generally speaking, the higher your income the more you’re likely to benefit. At the same time, the bill is more likely to reduce the after-tax income of filers at the lower and upper extremes of the income spectrum. The doubling of the standard deduction will mean far fewer filers at all income levels will itemize their deductions.

  According to CNN, those claiming a child tax credit for dependents are more likely to be winners in the bill. Much of the benefit to middle-income earners comes from the doubling of the child tax credit and the standard deduction. The Senate bill, like the House bill, would also make the child tax credit available to higher earners.

CNN highlights that those at the low end of the spectrum, however, are not likely to benefit from the expansion of the credit because it would not be refundable, meaning they won’t get money back from the credit expansion if their federal income tax bill is zero after taking other tax breaks.

Meanwhile, NBC takes a closer look at Donald Trump in its article titled “First Read’s Morning Clips: What Trump’s Russia denials mean for national security”

NBC says that Trump continues to deny the evidence that Russia waged an assault on America and supported his run for the White House. There is no surprise that Putin praised Trump on economy, says Russia collusion claims are “invented”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Washington Post says that the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat. The repercussions radiate across the government.

The Washington Post highlights that rather than search for ways to deter Kremlin attacks or safeguard U.S. elections, Trump has waged his own campaign to discredit the case that Russia poses any threat and he has resisted or attempted to roll back efforts to hold Moscow to account.

Trump continues to pursue an elusive bond with Putin, which he sees as critical to dealing with North Korea, Iran and other issues. “Having Russia in a friendly posture,” he said last month, “is an asset to the world and an asset to our country.” At the same time, his position has alienated close American allies and often undercut members of his Cabinet — all against the backdrop of a criminal probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

There are so many other examples which show that Donald Trump is the biggest threat to the national security.

Trump attacks his own people on many fronts. And his Tax Bill is another remarkable illustration that Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who is truly anti-American.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

    ANTI-AMERICAN NATURE OF DONALD TRUMP: GOP Tax Bill, Donald Trump Represents A National Security Threat. NBC News, CNN & The Washington Post Stupidity is the most expensive thing in the world. Because to fix the damage caused by stupid people, would require a lot of money, efforts and time.

[kj1966-blog]

ROBERT MUELLER PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN PREVENTING CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES. The explosion, which happened around 7:30 a.m. in a passageway under 42nd Street between 7th and 8th avenues, triggered…