Categories
Disability and Elderly Issues

“Agriculture is more boring than it used to be”

Introductory Chapter: The Politics of Food

Politics of Food-Intro

 

 

The Department of Agriculture Is Not a Department of Agriculture

Politics of Food-Chapter3

 

++++

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The glorious Hebrew calligraphy from the mystical city of Safed, Israel

spiral home blessing

ברחת הבית

The Hebrew letters above the spiral read Bless the House. Brchat [bless] Habayit [the house]. Blessing the House has connotations described in the spiral calligraphy below. In the Beginning, Rashi mused, before God created the world, She created the Hebrew alphabet. The Hebrew alphabet created the world. The difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians believe that in the beginning there was the Word. We believe the world began with the creation of with the first letter of the holy Hebrew alphabet. This letter: https://youtu.be/Ibih2s0rLsA

A christian Fundamentalist group released this excellent video on the first letter of God’s especially holy first name. Discover the secret behind the Hebrew letter “Yud”. Visit www.thelivingword.org.au. Published on Oct 12, 2015.

The discussion of Jesus is not relevant at the conclusion of the living word video because I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That said, I revere him. When I was in Israel I climbed to the top of the mount in the Gallelle where Jesus preached this remarkable sermon. Produced here, of course, in the King James Bible. While innacurate, the King James Bible is a work of art in itself. King James English is magnificent.


Matthew 5-7 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Beatitudes

5 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the [a]earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

++++


Prelude to Safed

In August of 1967, I was falling in love with Haifa. After shoveling manure in the Negev for a solid month, the head of family returned from his tank in the Sinai. The huge manure pile was diminished. I was not quite on my own.

On a dairy farm, there is always plenty of manure to shovel. I had distinguished myself as valuable because I was the only one of the six volunteers the Jewish Agency had sent to  Kvar Warburg who lasted more than two weeks.

The other five volunteers were all British soldiers of war who had fought for Aparteid in Rhodesia and were eager to kill. Arabs would do. I was the only Jew. I spoke some Hebrew.

Some call it treason; I call it treason

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/15/16340

 

 

 

 

Treason Law and Legal Definition

A person commits the crime of treason if he levies war against his state or country or sides to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason is a crime under federal and some state laws. Treason is made a high crime, punishable by death, under federal law by Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

++++

Under this article of the Constitution, 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. Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.

 

++++

The majority of states outlaw treason in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-htrump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html

++++

Article Three Section  3 (treason section) of the United States Constitution

Section. 3.
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, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#

++++

Attainder of Treason

In English criminal lawattainder or attinctura was the metaphorical “stain” or “corruption of blood” which arose from being condemned for a serious capital crime (felony or treason). It entailed losing not only one’s life, property and hereditary titles, but typically also the right to pass them on to one’s heirs. Both men and women condemned of capital crimes could be attainted.

Attainder by confession resulted from a guilty plea at the bar before judges or before the coroner in sanctuaryAttainder by verdict resulted from conviction by juryAttainder by process resulted from a legislative act outlawing a fugitive. The last form is obsolete in England (and prohibited in the United States), and the other forms have been abolished.

 

++++

++++

CNN July 16: Following President Trump’s joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, former CIA Director John Brennan tweeted that Trump’s comments were “nothing short of treasonous.” CNN panelists discuss.

++++

++++

‘Nothing short of treason’: US voters on the Trump-Putin summit

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nothing-short-of-treason-us-voters-on-the-trump-putin-summit/ar-AAAfYsc

++++

PLYMOUTH, Minn. – If President Trump needs tips for dealing with Vladimir Putin, there’s a real estate agent in Plymouth who may have some insight.

Mark Stipakov knows the Russian president from his earliest days, as an elementary school kid at School 193 in Leningrad. They spent five years together as classmates in the Soviet Union, before Stipakov switched schools at the end of sixth grade.

++++

“Dastardly”

++++

David Hickton, former U.S. attorney who pioneered the tactic of indicting state actors for hacking, talks with Rachel Maddow about the value of indicting nation-state adversaries even if the chances for extradition are low. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc

++++

++++

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

Congressional Interpretation

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

“What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office…” Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3)provides that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons “for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

 

In the past, England had used impeachment of the King’s ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).

Misdemeanor

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word “misdemeanor” which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be “malpractice or neglect of duty.” This was removed and replaced with “treasonbribery, or corruption.” The word “corruption” was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term “maladministration.” This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

Relating to the President’s Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply “maladministration.” This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase “high crimes or misdemeanors” which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

+++++

A Saturdsy Night Massacre review

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Impeachment Trials

The trial in the Senate is handled by “Managers” from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).

If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…”

For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).

However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one — “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer — the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority “on all fours” for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.

The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the “political question” doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon’s case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon’s removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

This article was written by Ronald Arthur Lowry.

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

++++

What’s Past is prologue

I.A.House Judiciary Committee vote to impeach President Richard Nixon

IE Background

++++

IE. Hearings begin

++++

 

 

 

 

Shakespeare and me

William Shakespeare–The Bard [Documentary]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespearehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare

Our children have become the other America

“I have spent the past two weeks visiting the United States, at the invitation of the federal government, to look at whether the persistence of extreme poverty in America undermines the enjoyment of human rights by its citizens.

“In my travels through California, Alabama, Georgia, Puerto Rico, West Virginia, and Washington DC I have spoken with dozens of experts and civil society groups, met with senior state and federal government officials and talked with many people who are homeless or living in deep poverty. I am grateful to the Trump administration for facilitating my visit and for its continuing cooperation with the UN Human Rights Council’s accountability mechanisms that apply to all states.”

++++

 

++++

 

 

++++

The UN’s Philip Alston is an expert on deprivation – and he wants to know why 41m Americans are living in poverty. The Guardian joined him on a special two-week mission into the dark heart of the world’s richest nation

by

++++

++++

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhxWNOtUn90

++++

 

 

 

Income inequality Huey Long style

++++

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/doufU_AQB6M

 

 

 

 

 

OK Boys andGirls; Let’s read the Koran

Informal

Islam, the Quran, and the Five Pillars All Without a Flamewar: Crash Course World History #13

6,395,622 views

Crash Course World History is now available on DVD! Visit http://store.dftba.com/products/crash... to buy a set for your home or classroom. Published on Apr 19, 2012.

++++

Semi-formal

Islam
Period 609–632

Quran

Quran (/kɔːrˈɑːn/[a] kor-AHN; Arabic: القرآن‎ al-Qurʾān,[b]literally meaning “the recitation”; also romanizedQur’an or Koran[c]) is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God (Allah).[1] It is widely regarded as the finest work in classical Arabic literature.[2][3][4][5]

++++

Formal

 

 

++++

All Yemen All the Time

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

This baby died unnecessarily in June or July of this year.

She or he was killed in one of two ways.

First, by bombs made in Texas.

Second, by Trump's air support of a blockade of Yemen where 18 million civilians are dying of starvation and cholera. Death from cholera is awful enough. Death from cholera during a cholera epidemic where Donald Trump is assisting the Saudis is bombing Physicians without Borders hospitals is a crime against humanity. 

Jane Ferguson is responsible for this report. The Pulitzer Prize Committee should honor Jane Ferguson by awarding her a special Pulitzer.

Ada Louise Huxtable deservedly was a awarded a special Pulitzer. If anyone deserves a special Pulitzer Jane Ferguson does.

Jane Ferguson has proven demonstrably at a minimum President Trump is guilty of assisting with genocide.

Are you going to believe your lying eyes or Donald Trump?

++++

This is the most recent news about Yemen from one of the most respected sources is the world

Yesterday Foreign Policy published this article

Yemen on Brink of Catastrophe as U.N. Envoy Pushes for Truce
U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could be enabling the disaster.
++++

N.B

On July 4, 2018 at 8 AM, NB: President Trump was helping the Saudis kill Infants, children, and other civilians principally their children’s mothers, grandmothers, and other civilians on Independence Day when the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote:

“A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

++++

++++

Special message to my 1,800 Facebook Friends

All Yemen all the time.

 
Notice of future practice. This timeline is dedicated to solving the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world. Yemen.
 
A child is currently dying in Yemen every 10 minutes of starvation. Meanwhile, farmers in the US and the rest of the developed world complain of surplus they cannot sell, give away, store, or destroy.
 
President Donald J. Trump is guitly of genocide