American English: Racist?

One thing that makes a nation is a common heritage and culture, which is often shown by a common language. After all, communicating is what language is all about. And people can't communicate if they are speaking different languages. Quite a few countries require prospective immigrants to demonstrate proficiency with their language: Canada and France come to mind.

Map of US official language status by state before 2016. Blue: English declared the official language; light-blue: 2 official languages, including English; gray: no official language specified

While English is not an actual official language, there are some who consider it the de facto national language. It is the sole, but unofficial, language of the federal government. the United States federal government has recognized no official language, even though nearly all federal, state and local government business is conducted in English

There have been attempts to make English the official language of the US with the first major one being in 1923 with a bill drafted by Congressman Washington J. McCormick. The U.S. House of Representatives passed English as the official language in 1996, but the Senate did not act on the measure before the conclusion of the 104th Congress. English is the official language of 32 states as of 2019.

Proponents of this movement include US Senator S.I. Hayakawa and Mauro E. Mujica, who is a naturalized citizen, Mujica was born in Antofagasta, Chile, and moved to the United States in 1964. Is someone who speaks multiple languages who berates someone for speaking Spanish really racist or just pointing out that it's rude to speak another language (e.g, Aaron Schlossberg).  Could he have made his point in another way.

Contrary to what is often believed, most of the world's population is bilingual or multilingual. Monolingualism is characteristic only of a minority of the world's peoples. On the other hand, it makes more sense to speak the common language instead of another language (Disclosure: I speak English, French, and German)

Would it take the US making English the official language to end this debate, especially since currently it seems that people who are "Trump supporters" are being accused of the being the crowd who support speaking English.

On the other hand, having a common language would be a factor in a national identity.

Reparation for slavery is not a simple topic.

As I said before it was the Transatlantic Slave trade, which means it goes beyond just the United States: especially if you are discussing the people who traded slaves.

You can listen to this episode here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csynsp. The person in question is Spanish and his family was trading slaves after the trade became illegal.

And now that you are distracted by the concept or reparations...

What exactly is the status of The Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Serious question since this is something which happened recently enough to be in our lifetime. It also has a real impact on current events where as reparations are pretty nebulous.

 Wouldn't it make more sense to be discussing this since it has a very real effect on minorities and US politics?

 Which leads to the next question: WHY isn't it being discussed?

What if capitalism and free market forces worked to regulate firearms in the US?

The Constitution protects you against governmental actions. it doesn't protect you against the actions on non-governmental bodies.

One of the things mentioned in this clip is a landlord's prohibition on gun ownership in the lease not being a violation of the Second Amendment.

Do property rights overrule the Second Amendment?

Let's toss in for good measure that the Heller-McDonald decisions were very limited in their scope (in addition to contradiction prior Supreme Court precedents of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886] and US v Miller, 307 US 174 [1939[).{1}

Anyway, the firearms market is pretty much saturated with companies going bankrupt.

It may not be the librul-progressives that kill this insanity as much as market forces working to limit it.


Footnote
{1} US v Miller States that "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." This is the exact opposite conclusion from that drawn by the Heller-MCDonald decisions.

Wolves in sheepdogs clothing.

Funny how this myth seems to have caught on with the gunloon population (and fans of the military system, which includes cops).

So much is wrong with it.

First off, dogs don't carry weapons.

And the people who thought it would have been funny if I took the real Laci out hunting boar really have no idea of how fearless and selfless dogs are. Which takes us back to the previous point: a dog will protect a pack member. And that is the case no matter how small the dog is.

They don't need guns. They have their teeth, agility, and strength.

Another point with how wacky this trope is comes with the fact that Dogs and Wolves aren't that different. Dogs are a lot more accustomed to being around humans. Dogs also know the human is the boss. But other than that: there isn't that much difference between Lobo and Laci the Powderpuff Chinese Crested in how they act.

Sheepdogs work using their innate characteristics for hunting (herding sheepdogs) or pack protection (pastoral sheepdogs). The pastoral sheepdog is going to hang with the herd of sheep and protect it from preditors: animal or human. You want a good example of a pastoral sheepdog and it would be the Bearnaise Mountain Dog. Nice until you provoke it.

And they are about as different from the wolf, sheepdog, and sheep trope as you can get.

On the other hand,Argus and Fiona were two Bernese mountain dogs that were shot and killed when they entered a neighbor's yard. The dude with the gun was afraid they would kill his sheep. I guess the dogs were pretty scary to someone who has a gun.

And isn't really familiar with dogs: especially Bearnaise Mountain Dogs.

The real bottom line here is that a real sheepdog doesn't need to have a gun, or force, to be effective at protecting sheep.

Also, we need to beware of the sheepdogs who want to keep us in line by using fear.

Sheep..and Sheepdogs

I was going for my shepherd's crook to use it. That brought back memories of growing up on a farm.

With Sheep.

And, sheepdogs as well. After all, I am a total dog lover: especially working dogs.

But there's an irony for me in the right wing trope of the sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves, which shouldn't surprise me it was dreamed up by a Yank. A Yank who probably never spent any time on a farm with sheep and sheepdogs.

Britain is relatively free of wolves, which is also the case with New Zealand. Both places along with the US are where I grew up raising sheep. And having sheepdogs herd the sheep.

Sheepdogs rarely every encounter a wolf, which is good since they are usually border collies, bearded collies, or Old English Sheepdogs. So, they aren't busy keeping the sheep blissfully happy in their ignorance through protecting them from wolves. Sheepdogs are keeping sheep in line through force. Not sure what would be the outcome of an actual sheepdog wolf encounter. I would bet on the wolf.

No, what sheep do is they herd sheep and take them to be sheared. or to the barn. Or slaughtered. A sheep dog makes the sheep go left, go right, stop in place, go too fast, slow down, etc.. The sheepdog says, ‘you do where my master wants you to do.”

Sheepdogs aren't a symbol of liberty: they are the symbol of oppression. Sheepdogs herd the people, telling them what they can or can’t do. They represent fascism, not liberty. They are not the protectors, they are the forces of repression. They are as authoritarian as you can get, which is probably why aggressive people latch onto this.

I have yet to see someone who uses this analogy demonstrate they have spent any time around sheep. Or Sheepdogs. I grew up going to sheepdog trials (and got my start as a lawyer defending them [that was a joke]). Actually, sheepdog trials are where you see sheepdogs in action.

I hope that gives you an idea of how fucked this analogy is.

Anyway, when we herded sheep we had shepherd's crooks and sheepdogs: not to protect them, but to herd the sheep. we had sheep shears when we sheared them. And shovels when we cleaned the pen.

We were keeping them in line. Not protecting them from wolves.

The blog "On Violence" went into this in depth. but I have yet to see another farmer say this is a shit analogy. So, I'll do it: It's a shit analogy.

See also:

A Moment of Science: Sheepdogs and Wolves

On Violence's essays:

“The Surprising History of American Sniper’s “Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs” Speech”

- On V in Other Places: Slate's "The Surprising History of American Sniper’s “Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs” Speech”

- Race, Evil, and Black Wolves: Answering the Critics Part 2

- The Most Insulting Part of the Sheepdog Analogy

- Now Who's Being Naive? When Sheepdogs Kill Sheep

- The Internal Inconsistency of Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves Analogy

- Some Closing Thoughts on Wolves, Sheep and Sheepdogs Analogy
- Wolves, Sheepdogs and the Cops I Know)

Why knowing a second language is a good thing.

In this case, the person should learn American Sign Language (ASL)

Because the gesture he is making is the one for "asshole" in American Sign Language.

We can only hope that he has realised he is an asshole, but I seriously doubt he has the intelligence.

Well, we're having a laugh at you.

Hey, Ta-Nehisi Coates: this is why your argument for reaprations is nonsense.

OK, first off, we are talking about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which goes a lot further than just the 50 US states and Territories. Slavery was international. After all, where did the slaves come from?

Why, Africa, of course. Which is your first hurdle. What was the level of those nations' complicity in the trade? Are you seriously going to ask countries such as Benin to pay its fair share of reparations? 

For over 200 years, powerful kings in what is now the country of Benin captured and sold slaves to Portuguese, French and British merchants. The slaves were usually men, women and children from rival tribes — gagged and jammed into boats bound for Brazil, Haiti and the United States.

Digging into the depths of African complicity in the trade basically rips any pan-Africanist veneer off your argument. You want to make Third World nations pay for your lifestyle? Have you been to any of these countries?

Or just France and Switzerland?

Seriously, dude, you need a reality check if that is the case.

And we don't need to leave Africa to see how this topic will devolve into a case of silly buggers given that Africans were complicit in the slave trade. The African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years back in 1999. Which was made even weirder by the United Nations sponsored World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban South Africa in September 2001. This conference resulted in  a resolution stating that the West owed reparations to Africa due to the "racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance" that the Atlantic slave trade caused.

Go figure!

Next, Slavery helped pay for the industrial revolution, which means most western societies should be footing the bill: not just the US.

As I pointed out in my previous post: the next question is who would qualify. Since Prince Harry's and Meghan Markle's son is descended from slaves: would that mean that someone from one of the richest families in Britain would get reparations? How would that play out if descendants of Caribbean slaves didn't get reparations?

So, who gets and who pays "reparations" is a seriously thorny topic: especially if we toss in the amount of time which has passed since the end of slavery.

Then there is the mechanism for reparations and what form would they take. But the problem is that poverty isn't just limited to inner city blacks, as Fred Hampton was well aware. Urban decay doesn't just effect black people.

The thing which hits me is that this subject is far more complex than the US media is capable of addressing. Toss in that the Democrats are embracing this over more pressing issues, such as the environment (which also relates to race: look into the environmental justice movement). Poor people are more likely to live near environmental degradation.

The real upshot is that many of the manifestations of "reparations" would also have to include people other than those who are descendants of slavery (or indentured servitude, or  transportation). It also needs to be more than just monetary and embrace issues such as education, urban renewal, better housing, the environment, jobs, etcetera.

On the other hand, stirring up division just might help get Trump re-elected along with a republican legislature. Nothing like people wanting a nebulous concept for something which ended 156 years ago.

Two lessons: it is with the best intentions that the worst work is done.

And be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

Would Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor qualify for slavery reparations?

Serious question. Would a member of the British Royal Family who has an African-American heritage qualify for reparations if it was proven he was descended from slaves?

Likewise, would the WHITE descendants of indentured servants qualify since indentured servitude was similar to slavery. Let's toss in the people who were transported to the North American Colonies prior to the War for Independence.

The major problem with reparations for slavery is the time between emancipation and modern time. Sure, there were "extenuating circumstances" in post-slavery discrimination, but how far does that go toward mandating "reparations"?

We can also get into the reparations which were given directly after slavery.

But the most obvious argument to show how ridiculous this proposition happens to be is that a member of the British Royal Family would qualify for reparations.

Yeah, I will concede that there has been discrimination, but maybe we need to have an open discussion about race, economics, and opportunity in the US.

Because the last thing I want to hear is a college drop out telling me he didn't have economic advantages because of race. especially when I look at Coates' accomplishments.

I might respect his argument more if he went to University of Maryland Law school and couldn't find a job worthy of his credentials.

See also:

• The Education of Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Donald Trump IS...

The All-American Id from New York City.

Lie it or not. A hat tip to Arlo Gutherie's "Alice's Restaurant" for this idea.

What really bothers me about Russiagate and the Mueller report

The fact that Trump looked as if he didn't want to be President. That was a common theme from journalists and other outsiders who spent time with his campaign.

Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.

On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!

We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.

The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.

And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).

I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
or
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?

Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.

It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election".  On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.

So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.



See also:

• BuzzFeed’s Controversial Cohen Story Raises Question: Did Trump Want to Be President?
• The Dismissed DNC Fraud Lawsuit Explained
• Vote-Rigging Suit Against DNC Dropped, Mostly Because the DNC Can’t Rig Much of Anything
• Hillary Clinton says she didn't prepare concession speech because she was convinced she would win

THEY JUST WON'T SHUT UP!!!!

Some people need to get the concept of "rights" and "due process".

One of which is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which some people are happy to go by when it's their candidate, but won't let go of when it's Donald Trump.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Donald Trump.

I am also no fan of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular and any rigging was to try and find someone more unpopular than she was.

The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.

Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!

Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.

There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media.  But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al. 

Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.

Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.

At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.

Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.

Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.

Maybe the Mueller report WASN'T a witch hunt: or be careful what you wish for!

While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.

Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.

There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.

Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.

Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.

And it might not turn out the way they want it!

See also:

• With Craig Indictment, Mueller Probe Sends Ripples Through the Swamp
• Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.
• Mueller's report looks bad for Obama
• Is the FBI’s latest probe of the Clinton Foundation a ‘witch hunt’ – or something more?
• Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections
• Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

Noam Chomsky on Russiagate

Russian interference was minimal if it even existed. No one is talking about Israel's interference in US elections.

"There's no interference in elections that begins to compare to campaign funding."

More election rigging

Now if you were an environmentalist group and going to endorse a candidate, which one of these would you choose?

The person with the 100% (or 92%): Bernie Sanders?

Or the person with the 82%: Hillary Clinton?

Bernie Sanders was the highest rated candidate on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard and the Climate Hawks Vote PAC in 2016.

Clinton had the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates using the LCV's standard.

Yet, the LCV chose Clinton.

What the fuck?

LCV's Action Fund took an unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries was cast. That was a big mistake. It was far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to make an endorsement.

Yet they did. And they chose a candidate who was poor by their own standards!
Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure as Secretary of State. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond.

Clinton supported the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders had introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and Martin O’Malley actively supported the climate divestment movement, while Clinton ,  whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists did not taken a position.

This was Clinton's reaction when asked about her connection to the fossil fuel industry by a Greenpeace Volunteer.

Clinton never did the actions necessary to gain the support of the environmentalist movement (other than those establishment groups who are hopeful that change can come through the duopoly regime). On the other hand, climate change had short shrift if it received any attention at all during the campaign.

There are a lot of issues going on here from having a candidate chosen long before the primary process begins, failure to have a serious debate on the issue, and just plain off earning the vote.

The environment is just one of many issues where Clinton just wasn't trustworthy. And she didn't help the situation by antagonising environmental activists. She failed to give straight answers on the issue. I would toss in that she failed to address The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) issue in a meaningful manner.

But this is one of many issues where Clinton demonstrated she wasn't trustworthy.

I really have to question who rigged the election when a group such as LCV essentially declared that there’s no need for any further discussion of the environment or climate by the Democratic candidates before the primary process really began. And they decided that in favour of a candidate who was poor by their own standard.

See also:

• Why the League of Conservation Voters was wrong to endorse Hillary Clinton
• 'What a Crock': Clinton Breaks DAPL Silence With Statement That Says 'Literally Nothing'

It only gets worse from here

A little honest, self-examination would have been a lot more helpful than trying to blame all this on the Russians.

It will be even more amusing when the investigation gets investigated and shown to be a crock of shit.

Seriously people, it would have made a whole lot more sense to examine what REALLY happened than trying to blame the mess on the Russians.

Mud! Mud! Glorious Mud!

Here's the only collusion that was significant in 2016
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251

One of the pundits said that the Democrats see the Mueller Report as evidence of collusion and obstruction, while the Republicans see it as a vindication of the president.

And the Independent and Third Party voters?

We see it as neglecting the internal bullshit of the duopoly parties.

We have a document in Wilileaks, which has been confirmed as authentic showing that Clinton wanted a "Pied Piper" candidate to run against.

Trump received a significant amount of free media coverage, which wouldn't have been possible a while back. I remember in 1980 when the Ronald Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" couldn't be shown on TV in the US because it would be free coverage. On the other hand, I've heard estimates of the free publicity received by Trump to be in the billions of dollars.

CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said that, “It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.” 

Never mind that the same media shut out Bernie Sanders. Now, who was it who was trying to meddle in the election.

Of course the media are going to be pushing the Russian collusion thing since it distracts from the far more egregious acts that are happening in the US electoral process.

The Clinton campaign wasn't too bothered by foreign assistance, which turns out to be dodgy. The Steele Dossier is coming up for scrutiny since the release of the Mueller Report.  Ukrainians and Russians aren't the same nation (I should know), and there is evidence that the Ukrainians were assisting the Clinton Campaign.

It gets even more amusing since there are also allegations that the Russians tried to assist the Sanders campaign! That went well! I think there is far more evidence that the Democrats rigged the game against Sanders which makes that claim truly laughable.

Especially since it's been shown that Clinton was chosen to be the Democratic nominee in 2015: well before the voting started. Sanders was an inconvenience that showed the primary process for being the farce it is.

One of the reasons I voted for the Greens was that I saw both of the duopoly candidates as being slimey and neither party is willing to take responsibility. One major thing they could do to clear up this is to work on serious election reform.

My takeaway from these investigations is that the duopoly and the US mainstream media aren't going to address this issue in a meaningful way since doing so makes it clear that the hoodwinking of the American public has been going on openly for a long time.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman was League of Women Voters President Nancy M. Neuman who said that in October of 1988, which demonstrates that this conspiracy has been ongoing for some time.

And it is internal to the duopoly parties.

But it's a heck of a lot easier to point to countries that use the Cyrillic Alphabet as being the perps since few people can understand what is really happening.

And it's happening at home.

The real takeaway from all this is that the US needs election reform badly.

Sources:

• Election 2016: Trump’s free media helped keep cost down, but fewer donors provided more of the cash
• Breakingviews: Trump's $4.6 billion in free media - CNBC.com
• Donald Trump May Hate The Media, But They Are Both Winners This Election Donald Trump 2016: Did We Create Trump?
• Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier
• Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - POLITICO
• As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges
• League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud"

The Mueller Report is in: are you guilty of collusion?

Exhibit 1. Memo of Russian Operatives from Wikileaks

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251

it seems that Russia's attempt to influence the 2016 election was to exacerbate the political divisions within the US and promote Trump as a presidential candidate.

It seems some people are conspicuously absent from the Mueller report. Why aren't the Russian operatives responsible for Exhibit 1 being mentioned?

I think that is prime evidence that the General Counsel's report was a witch hunt.

Let's face it, the entire thing is based upon leaked Democratic Party internal communications.

Next, it seems that the Russians wanted to use social media to turn people against Hillary Clinton.

Was that really necessary? Hillary Clinton was one of the most unpopular candidates to run: EVER!

The only candidate more unpopular was Donald Trump!

On the other hand, that seems to mean that you have to be some kind of Russian bot if you posted anything that was remotely critical of Hillary Clinton.  I mean who else would dare criticise the party's chosen candidate?

Those Bernie Bros were Russian stooges as was anyone else who dared not vote for Hillary.  And don't you dare to criticise her.

The reality is that there is more than enough documentation of Clinton acting like an asshole without anyone's assistance. She didn't need the Russians to make her look bad. She did a great job on her own.

So far, I have yet to see any remotely plausible reason for Clinton's loss other than the Electoral College, but some people want to go on like a bunch sore losers hoping that Trump will be impeached.

Aside: Do you think they would be happy with Pence?

Personally, I saw a lot more internal US actions that violated the concept of a free and fair election. The ironic thing was those actions came from the Democratic Party.

But who is investigating how independents who tried to reregister as Democrats were denied the opportunity to vote in closed Primaries?

And the Democratic Parties violation of its internal rules to favour Clinton over Sanders are an open secret. It's the elephant in the room about all this.

I mean the e-mails in question are internal Democratic Party Communications which have been confirmed to be authentic.

As a criminal defence attorney, I would be hammering on that one if my client were accused of this shit.

Navigating the disaster that is Brexit

Brexit and Donald Trump have one thing in common: They were intended to be alternatives which were so repugnant that no one would vote for either one.

I should be making a fortune off of this since my legal studies were geared toward the European Union. I was expecting to get hired to help someone navigate the European Union, and now navigating the disaster that is Brexit.

And Brexit is far more of a disaster than Donald Trump since no one expected to really have it happen. I could have told anyone who would have listened that it was going to be a disaster: especially since no one worked out what would happen when it happened.

Take the US Civil War: only make it non-violent with a lot of negotiation.

It was a bad idea to separate a nation which functions: no matter how poorly one may see it functioning. It's even worse when the party that wants to separate has less party than the what they are separating from.  The bad divorce analogy sounds really good.

Only most divorces try to be equitable: this one has no need to be equitable.

This one can have you pay for their education and support them. Then when the person who was supporting decides to leave has to pay twice the amount of support to leave.

Not only that the party separating finds that they can only sleep in the doghouse...

If they take the agreement.

And they are totally fucked if they don't take the agreement.

Unfortunately, there is the "prestige point" factor that says, "we can't go back since we have already gone too far to reconcile." Or so the person thinks.

Yes, Britain could, and should, have a second referendum since now they understand what exactly leaving the European Union means. They have been getting a preview and not liking it since the process began.

But the other thing that Brexit and Trump have in common is that the people have to live with the decision until they decide to elect them out.

Obstruction of Justice..or exercising his rights?

There are a couple of things wrong with this meme.

Let's start with the most egregious.

No one has to testify or "cooperate" with an investigation according to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Here is the Jury Instruction about that:

You may have noticed that the defendant did not testify at this trial. The defendant has an absolute right not to testify, since the entire burden of proof in this case is on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty. It is not up to the defendant to prove that he (she) is innocent.

The fact that the defendant did not testify has nothing to do with the question of whether he (she) is guilty or not guilty. You are not to draw any adverse inference against the defendant because he (she) did not testify.

You are not to consider it in any way, or even discuss it in your
deliberations.

You must determine whether the Commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits.

Pointing out that a defendant refused to testify is a reversible error.

I'm not going to bother to cite to anything because doing a search on "Defendant not testifying" will turn up a shitload of material to back me up.

Come on, people, haven't you fucking heard of "taking the fifth"?????

And while we are on it. "Hiding tax returns".   Here's what the IRS says about that:

Confidentiality rules apply to all information the IRS has about your tax return, whether that information comes from you or from some other source. ... Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony crime, with a maximum penalty of a $250,000 fine and five years in prison.

Yeah, there are ways to have this information disclosed, but the rules are weighed toward the privacy of the individual: whether that person is public or private.

26 U.S. Code §6103 protects taxpayers from forced disclosure and trumps the primary legislation for disclosure, the Freedom of Information Act.  FOIA enables the public to inspect rulings and many other IRS documents, files, and memoranda, but it does not encompass “matters [that are] specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” IOW 26 U.S. Code §6103. Although some aspects of the statute's meaning remain to be elucidated.

Which would mean a court case that would delay any disclosure until well after Trump is president.

I've heard people say that Congress can request them, but here is Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation reg for doing that (Background Regarding The Confidentiality And Disclosure Of Federal Tax Returns ):

https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5159

It's a little long.

Toss in that a personal income tax return, Form 1040, without schedules does not disclose that much information. It is an aggregate summary of information. Even with schedules, the returns would not provide very much information about  a candidate who earns income through corporations and/or partnerships, such as a businessman. The income and deduction information derived from those sources appear separately on other forms (for example, 1065 and 1041). Only the taxpayer's share of the net amount passes through or appear as a dividend. Disclosure of those forms would involve violating the privacy rights of the other people (e.g., shareholders and partners), which would require an additional waiver for disclosure.

So, wanting to see a tax return wouldn't tell you that much, unless you are a forensic accountant. And maybe not even then.

And just wanting to see how much someone earns isn't a compelling enough reason to demand their tax returns.

The thing about rights is that they protect even people you consider repugnant. It's when they do that they are the most effective.

I would add that going after someone just because adds to the sense of a witch hunt. which isn't really something the Democratic Party should be doing if they really want to elect someone besides Trump.

See also:

• As the Mueller report looms, Democrats find voters would rather talk 'kitchen-table' issues