United States Flag in Distress

United States Flag in Distress
We are not OK

Family Crest

Family Crest
Motto: I will never forget. [ Source HouseofNames ]

HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK - Moves forward to 2125 due to election of US President trump.

Estimate of the time that Humanity will go extinct or civilization will collapse. The HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK moves forward to 2125 due to US President trump's abandonment of climate change goals. Clock moved to 90 seconds to doom at December 2023. Apologies to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for using the name.

PLEASE QUOTE, COPY and LINK

While this material is copyrighted, you are hereby granted permission and encouraged to copy and paste any excerpt and/or complete statement from any entry on this blog into any form you choose. In return, please provide explicit credit to this source and a link or URL to the publication. Email links to mckeever.mp@gmail.com

You may also wish to read and quote from these groundbreaking essays on economic topics with the same permission outlined above

The Jobs Theory of Growth [https://miepa.net/apply.html]

Moral Economics [https://miepa.net/moral.html]

Balanced Trade [https://miepa.net/essay.html]

There Are Alternatives to Free Market Capitalism [https://miepa.net/taa.html]

Specific Country Economic Policy Analyses - More Than 50 Countries from Argentina to Yemen [https://miepa.net/]




Translate

Monday, February 17, 2020

Political Murders in Russia - Putin

Putin's history of political murders should make Americans think very carefully about accepting anything from Putin:

Murders by Putin: A Brief History of Putintime, La Russophobe

March 1997

45-year-old former KGB agent Vladimir Putin (pictured, left) is plucked from obscurity out of the St. Petersburg local government apparatus by President Boris Yeltsin and named Deputy Chief of Staff. In June, he defends his PhD dissertation in “strategic planning” at St. Petersburg’s Mining Institute. Later, this document proves to have been plagiarized from a KGB translation of work by U.S. professors published many years earlier (as if nobody would notice, and in fact for quite a while nobody did).

July 1998
In a second inexplicable move, Yeltsin names Putin head of the KGB (now called the FSB).

November 1998
 Less than four months after Putin takes over at the KGB, opposition Duma Deputy Galina Starovoitova (pictured, right), the most prominent pro-democracy Kremlin critic in the nation, is murdered at her apartment building in St. Petersburg. Four months after that, Putin will play a key role in silencing the Russian Attorney General, Yury Skuratov, who was investigating high-level corruption in the Kremlin, by airing an illicit sex video involving Skuratov on national TV. Four months after the dust settles in the Skuratov affair, Putin will be named Prime Minister.

August 1999
Completing a hat trick of bizarre spontaneous promotions, proud KGB spy Putin is named by Yeltsin Prime Minister of Russia. Almost immediately, Putin orders a massive bombing campaign against the tiny, defenseless breakaway republic of Chechnya, apparently seeing the reassertion of Russian power there as key to overall resurgence of Russia’s military and state security apparatus, his primary political objective. On August 26th, he’s forced to acknowledge the horrific consequences of the bombing. Hundreds of civilians are killed and tens of thousands are left homeless as civilian targets are attacked. World opinion begins to turn starkly against Russia, especially in Europe, very similarly to the manner in which it has polarized against U.S. President George Bush over Iraq. Putin’s poll numbers in Russia begin to slide.

September 1999
An apartment building in the Pechatniki neighborhood of Moscow is blown up by a bomb. 94 are killed. Less than a week later a second bomb destroys a building in Moscow’s Kashirskoye neighborhood, killing 118. Days after that, a massive contingent of Russian soldiers is surrounding Chechnya as public opposition to the war evaporates. On October 1st, Putin declares Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov and his parliament illegitimate. Russian forces invade.

New Year’s Eve, 1999
Boris Yeltsin resigns the presidency of Russia, handing the office to Putin in order to allow him to run as an incumbent three months later. Given the pattern of bizarre promotions Putin has previously received, the move is hardly even surprising. So-called “experts” on Russia scoff at the possibility that Putin could be elected, proclaiming that, having tasted freedom, Russia can “never go back” to the dark days of the USSR.

March 2000
Despite being the nominee of a man, Yeltsin, who enjoyed single-digit public approval ratings in polls, Vladimir Putin is elected “president” of Russia in a massive landslide (he wins nearly twice as many votes as his nearest competitor). Shortly thereafter, all hell breaks loose in Chechnya. Russia will ultimately be convicted of human rights violations before the European Court for Human Rights and condemned for its abuses of the civilian population by every human rights organization under the sun.

[Between April 2000 and March 2002, Russia plunges into a nightmarish conflict in Chechnya eerily similar to what America now faces in Iraq. Opposition journalists, especially those who dare to report on what it going on in Chechnya, suddenly start dying. In 2000 alone, reporters Igor Domnikov, Sergey Novikov, Iskandar Khatloni, Sergey Ivanov and Adam Tepsurgayev are murdered — not by hostile fire in Chechnya but in blatant assassinations at home in Russia. On June 16, 2001, at a press conference in Brdo Pri Kranju, Slovenia, President Bush is asked about Putin: “Is this a man that Americans can trust?” Bush replies: “I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.”]

 April 2003
Sergei Yushenkov, co-chairman of the Liberal Russia political party (pictured, left), is gunned down at the entrance of his Moscow apartment block. Yushenkov had been serving as the vice chair of the group known as the “Kovalev Commission” which was formed to informally investigate charges that Putin’s KGB had planted the Pechatniki and Kashirskoye apartment bombs to whip up support for the Putin’s war in Chechnya after the formal legislative investigation turned out to be impossible. Another member of the Commission, Yuri Shchekochikhin (see below) will perish of poisoning, a third will be severely beaten by thugs, and two other members will lose their seats in the Duma. The Commission’s lawyer, Mikhail Trepashkin (see below) will be jailed after a secret trial on espionage charges. Today, virtually none of the members of the Commission are left whole and it is silent.

May 2003
Putin’s popularity in opinion polls slips below 50% after sliding precipitously while the conflict in Chechnya became increasingly bloody. Suddenly, he begins to appear vulnerable, and oil billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky begins to be discussed as one who could unseat him. All hell breaks loose in Russian politics.

 July 2003
Yuri Shchekochikhin (pictured, right), a vocal opposition journalist and member of the Russian Duma and the Kovalev Commission, suddenly contracts a mysterious illness. Witnesses reported: “He complained about fatigue, and red blotches began to appear on his skin. His internal organs began collapsing one by one. Then he lost almost all his hair.” One of Shchekochikhin’s last newspaper articles before his death was entitled “Are we Russia or KGB of Soviet Union?” In it, he described such issues as the refusal of the FSB to explain to the Russian Parliament what poison gas was applied during the Moscow theater hostage crisis, and work of secret services from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan, which operated with impunity in Moscow against Russian citizens of Turkoman origin. According to Wikipedia: “He also tried to investigate the Three Whales Corruption Scandal and criminal activities of FSB officers related to money laundering through the Bank of New York and illegal actions of Yevgeny Adamov, a former Russian Minister of Nuclear Energy. This case was under the personal control of Putin. In June of 2003, Shchekochikhin contacted the FBI and got an American visa to discuss the case with US authorities. However, he never made it to the USA because of his sudden death on July 3rd. The Russian authorities refused to allow an autopsy, but according to Wikipedia his relatives “managed to send a specimen of his skin to London, where a tentative diagnosis was made of poisoning with thallium” (a poison commonly used by the KGB, at first suspected in the Litvinenko killing).

October 2003
Assaults on the enemies of the Kremlin reach fever pitch as the election cycle begins. Within one week at the end of the month, two major opposition figures are in prison.

 October 22, 2003
Mikhail Trepashkin (pictured, right), a former KGB spy and the attorney for the Kovalev Commission, is arrested for illegal possession of a firearm (which he claims was planted in his vehicle). Also retain to represent some of the victims of the apartment bombings theselves, Trepashkin allegedly uncovered a trail of a mysterious suspect whose description had disappeared from the files and learned that the man was one of his former FSB colleagues. He also found a witness who testified that evidence was doctored to lead the investigation away from incriminating the FSB. The weapons charge against Trepashkin mysteriously morphs into a spying charge handled by a closed military proceeding that is condemned by the U.S. government as being a blatant sham, and Trepashkin is sent to prison for four years. Publius Pundit reported on Trepashkin’s plight back in early December of last year.

 October 25, 2003

Just as the presidential election cycle is beginning, Khodorkovsky (pictured, left) is arrested at the airport in Novosibirsk. He will be tried and convicted for tax fraud and sent to Siberia, just like in the bad old days of the USSR, in a show trial all international observers condemn as rigged (his lawyer has documented the legal violations in a 75-page treatise). He is there today, now facing a second prosecution for the same offense. His company, YUKOS, is being slowly gobbled up by the Kremlin.

March 2004
With Khodorkovsky conveniently in prison and the Kovalev Commission conveniently muzzled, Vladimir Putin is re-elected “president” of Russia, again in a landslide despite his poll numbers. He faces no serious competition from any opposition candidate. He does not participate in any debates. He wins a ghastly, Soviet-like 70% of the vote. Immediately, talk begins of a neo-Soviet state, with Putin assuming the powers of a dictator. The most public and powerful enemies of the regime start dropping like flies.

 June 2004
Nikolai Girenko (pictured, left), a prominent human rights defender, Professor of Ethnology and expert on racism and discrimination in the Russian Federation is shot dead in his home in St Petersburg. Girenko’s work has been crucial in ensuring that racially motivated assaults are classified as hate crimes, rather than mere hooliganism, and therefore warrant harsher sentences — as well as appearing as black marks on Russia’s public record.

 July 2004
Paul Klebnikov (pictured, right), editor of the Russian edition Forbes magazine, is shot and killed in Moscow. Forbes has reported that at the time of his death, Paul was believed to have been investigating a complex web of money laundering involving a Chechen reconstruction fund, reaching into the centers of power in the Kremlin and involving elements of organized crime and the FSB (the former KGB).

 September 2004
Viktor Yushchenko, anti-Russian candidate for the presidency of the Ukraine, is poisoned by Dioxin. Yushchenko’s chief of staff Oleg Ribachuk suggests that the poison used was a mycotoxin called T-2, also known as “Yellow Rain,” a Soviet-era substance which was reputedly used in Afghanistan as a chemical weapon. Miraculously, he survives the attack.

[Throughout the next year, a full frontal assault on the media is launched by the Kremlin. Reporters Without Borders states: “Working conditions for journalists continued to worsen alarmingly in 2005, with violence the most serious threat to press freedom. The independent press is shrinking because of crippling fines and politically-inspired distribution of government advertising. The authorities’ refusal to accredit foreign journalists showed the government’s intent to gain total control of news, especially about the war in Chechnya.”]

 September 2006
Andrei Kozlov (pictured, left), First Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Central Bank, who strove to stamp out money laundering (basically acting on analyses like that of reporter Klebnikov), the highest-ranking reformer in Russia, is shot and killed in Moscow. Many media reports classify Kozlov’s killing as “an impudent challenge to all Russian authorities” and warn that “failure to apprehend the killers would send a signal to others that intimidation of government officials is once again an option.” Less considered is the possibility that Kozlov, like Klebnikov, was on the trail of corruption that would have led into the Kremlin itself, which then lashed out at him preemptively assuming he could not be bought.

 October 2006
Anna Politkovskaya (pictured, right), author of countless books and articles exposing Russian human rights violations in Chechnya and attacking Vladimir Putin as a dictator, is shot and killed at her home in Moscow. In her book Putin’s Russia, Politkovskaya had written: “I have wondered a great deal why I have so got it in for Putin. What is it that makes me dislike him so much as to feel moved to write a book about him? I am not one of his political opponents or rivals, just a woman living in Russia. Quite simply, I am a 45-year-old Muscovite who observed the Soviet Union at its most disgraceful in the 1970s and ’80s. I really don’t want to find myself back there again.” Analysts begin to talk openly of Kremlin complicity in the ongoing string of attacks. Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes: “Local businessmen had no motivation to kill her — but officials of the army, the police and even the Kremlin did. Whereas local thieves might have tried to cover their tracks, Politkovskaya’s assassin, like so many Russian assassins, did not seem to fear the law. There are jitters already: A few hours after news of Politkovskaya’s death became public, a worried friend sent me a link to an eerie Russian Web site that displays photographs of ‘enemies of the people’ — all Russian journalists and human rights activists, some quite well known. Above the pictures is each person’s birth date and a blank space where, it is implied, the dates of their deaths will soon be marked. That sort of thing will make many, and probably most, Russians think twice before criticizing the Kremlin about anything.”

 November 2006
Alexander Litvinenko (pictured, left), KGB defector and author of the book Blowing up Russia, which accuses the Kremlin of masterminding the and Pechatniki and Kashirskoye bombings in order to blame Chechen terrorists and whip up support for an invasion of Chechnya (which shortly followed), is fatally poisoned by radioactive Polonium obtained from Russian sources. Litivinenko had given sensational testimony to the Kovalev Commission and warned Sergei Yushenkov that was a KGB target). In his last days Litvinenko himself, as well as other KGB defectors, including Oleg Kalugin, Yuri Shvets and Mikhail Trepashkin (who allegedly actually warned Litvinenko that he had been targeted before the hit took place) directly blamed the Kremlin for ordering the poisoning. Recent press reports indicate that British investigators have come to the same conclusion. With Litvinenko out of the picture, the only member of the Kovalev Commission left unscathed is its 77-year-old namesake chairman, dissident Sergei Kovalev — who has grown notably silent.

March 2007
On Sunday February 25th, the American TV news magazine Dateline NBC aired a report on the killing of Litvinenko. MSNBC also carried a report. The reports confirmed that British authorities believe Litvinenko perished in a “state-sponsored” assasination. In the opening of the broadcast, Dateline highlighted the analysis of a senior British reporter and a senior American expert on Russia who knew Litvinennko well. Here’s an excerpt from the MSNBC report:

Daniel McGrory, a senior correspondent for The Times of London, has reported many of the developments in the Litvinenko investigation. He said the police were stuck between a rock and a hard place. “While they claim, and the prime minister, Tony Blair, has claimed nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the police investigation, the reality is the police are perfectly aware of the diplomatic fallout of this story,” McGrory said. “Let’s be frank about this: The United States needs a good relationship with Russia, and so does Europe,” said Paul M. Joyal, a friend of Litvinenko’s with deep ties as a consultant in Russia and the former Soviet states. Noting that Russia controls a significant segment of the world gas market, Joyal said: “This is a very important country. But how can you have an important relationship with a country that could be involved in activities such as this? It’s a great dilemma.”

 Five days before the broadcast aired, shortly after he was interviewed for it, McGrory was dead. His obituary reads “found dead at his home on February 20, 2007, aged 54.” Five days after the broadcast aired, Joyal (pictured, right) was lying in a hospital bed after having been shot for no apparent reason, ostensibly the victim of a crazed random street crime.  He was returning home after having dinner with KGB defector Oleg Kalugin, and had been an aggressive advocate for Georgian independence from Russian influence.  The attack remains unsolved.

CONCLUSION: Did the Kremlin have anything to do with either Joyal’s or McGrory’s fates, or is it just coincidence that both were struck down within days of giving statements directly blaming the Kremlin for Litvinenko’s killing to the American press? Would the Kremlin really be so brazen as to attack an American for speaking in America? Whether it did not not is almost beside the point: the thing you can’t see is always scarier than the thing you can. The Kremlin is now positioned to turn random accidents into weapons. Appelbaum sums it up: “As Russian (and Eastern European) history well demonstrates, it isn’t always necessary to kill millions of people to frighten all the others: A few choice assassinations, in the right time and place, usually suffice. Since the arrest of oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2003, no other Russian oligarchs have attempted even to sound politically independent. After the assassination of Politkovskaya on Saturday, it’s hard to imagine many Russian journalists following in her footsteps to Grozny either.”


January 2009
 On January 19, 2009, Russian human rights attorney Stanslav Markelov (pictured, right) was shot in the back of the head with a silenced pistol as he left a press conference at which he announced his intention to sue the Russian government for its early release of the Col. Yuri Budanov, who murdered his 18-year-old client in Chechnya five years earlier. Also shot and killed was Anastasia Barburova, a young journalism student who was working for Novaya Gazeta and who had studied under Anna Politkovskaya, reporting on the Budanov proceedings.

July 2009

On July 14, 2009, leading Russian human rights journalist and activist Natalia Estemirova (pictured, left), a single mother of a teenaged daughter, was abducted in front of her home in Grozny, Chechnya, spirited across the border into Ingushetia, shot and dumped in a roadside gutter.  Viewed as the successor to Anna Politkovskaya and by far the most prominent living critic of Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, who had repeatedly threatened her life, Estemirova was a member of the “Memorial” human rights NGO and a steadfast defender of human rights in Chechnya.  Most recently, she had been reporting on the barbaric practice of the government in burning down the homes of rebel activists, often with women and children locked inside.






Political Murders in Russia - Stalin

Friday, February 14, 2020

UPDATE - CORONA VIRUS LAST CHANCE


UP DATE - SEE PROPOSAL BELOW

We have available to us only a single day and a single election to preserve elective democracy and avoid sliding into tyranny or a violent coup.

If trump wins a second term, he will continue installing the mechanisms of tyranny in the United States.

But, if the democrat candidate is elected, the new President can root out the tyrannical people and procedures trump has installed.

First the new president will fire every appointment made by 45 or his appointees. Every. Single. One.

Second the new President issues a cancellation of every executive order 45 made. Every. Single. One.

All the civil servants fired by 45 or pressured to leave or who quit should be offered a chance to reclaim their old job.

Then will the slide to tyranny be prevented for a time. It falls then to the new administration to ensure that no future tyranny is possible.

HOW TO WIN THE ELECTION

Law and order can win the election but it will not be easy. It’s likely that voting patterns will follow the 2016 election in the parties. Each major candidate likely will receive around 60 million votes from their respective bases. This ensures that the election will be decided by the eligible voters who did not vote in 2016.

The winning strategy targets the non-voters and encourages them to vote.

Nationally, non-voters trend toward non-white and younger demographics.







https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html

The numbers mean that 2020 ‘get out the vote’ efforts should target younger and minority populations.

Further, there are six states where 45 won the electoral numbers that had gone Democratic in 2012: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

THE PROPOSAL

IF mass rallies can't be staged, then there should be a campaign of appeals to vote which target Black and Hispanic younger voters - YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU NOW - on hip-hop and Hispanic media in each of the six swing states - Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 

IF rallies can be held, then: 

Create massive, bi-partisan star studded rallies/parties in September in each of the six states - Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. -  with these parameters:



1. Event is FREE, all on stage waive fees for event

2. Airport style security – there will be crazies

3. Venue – large sports stadiums

4. Presidents speak, mingle – Obama, Clinton, Bush, Carter, even 
45 himself can be invited

5. Candidates speak, mingle – Romney, Clinton, Harris, etc., etc.

6. Sports celebrities speak, mingle

7. Hip Hop, Hispanic and other musicians perform

8. Local elected officials speak, mingle 

9. Voting Registrars speak, offer registration help

10. Message – AMERICA NEEDS YOU NOW, LAST CHANCE TO VOTE FREE





Thursday, February 13, 2020

Extra Legal President May Require Extra Legal Remedy


Listen up boys and girls. It is time to color outside the box and ignore the lines.

trump obviously has decided to ignore the laws of the the United States as codified in our Constitution and use those laws to further his own interests at our expense.

Just as clearly he has forfeited any protections the law might allow him in the event of a setback for him because of his disregard for the laws of the country.

Fortunately history is replete with examples of such extra legal remedies to intolerable behavior on the part of a national officeholder.

There is a possible legal remedy to our situation which I will outline soon. In the meantime, let us consider what might happen if the legal remedies fail to suffice.

The United States has a long history of extra legal actions for political,purposes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians]

The case of Romania and the Ceaucescu family in the 1980's may be an exemplar for the United States.

'The trial of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu was a short trial held on 25 December 1989 by an Exceptional Military Tribunal, a drumhead court-martial created at the request of a newly formed group called the National Salvation Front, resulting in the death sentence and execution of former Romanian President and Romanian Communist Party General Secretary, Nicolae Ceaușescu, and his wife, Elena Ceaușescu.

Marked by irregularities that are typical of kangaroo courts and show trials, the main charge was genocide—namely, murdering "over 60,000 people" during the revolution in TimiÈ™oara. Other sources put the death toll between 689 and 1,200. Nevertheless, the charges did not affect the trial, as the verdict had been already decided before the tribunal had been created; General Victor Stănculescu had brought with him a specially selected team of paratroopers from a crack regiment, handpicked earlier in the morning to act as a firing squad. Before the legal proceedings began, Stănculescu had already selected the spot where the execution would take place—along one side of the wall in the barracks' square'.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae_and_Elena_Ceau%C8%99escu]

'Nicolae Ceaușescu refused to recognize the tribunal, arguing its lack of constitutional basis and claiming that the revolutionary authorities were part of a Soviet plot.

After the Communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu was executed in the Romanian Revolution of December 1989, the National Salvation Front (FSN) took power, led by Ion Iliescu. The FSN transformed itself into a political party and overwhelmingly won the general election of May 1990, with Iliescu as president. These first months were marked by violent protests and counter-protests, involving among others the coal miners of the Jiu Valley.

The government undertook a programme of free market economic reforms and privatization, following a gradualist line rather than shock therapy. Economic reforms have continued, although there was little economic growth until the 2000s. Social reforms soon after the revolution included easing of the former restrictions on contraception and abortion. Later governments implemented further social policy changes.

Political reforms have been based on a new democratic constitution adopted in 1991. The FSN split that year, beginning a period of coalition governments that lasted until 2000, when Iliescu's Social Democratic Party (now the Party of Social Democracy in Romania, PDSR), returned to power and Iliescu again became President, with Adrian Năstase as Prime Minister. This government fell in the 2004 elections amid allegations of corruption, and was succeeded by further unstable coalitions which have been subject to similar allegations.

During the period Romania has become more closely integrated with the West, becoming a member of NATO in 2004 and of the European Union in 2007.'

 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romania_since_1989]

Friday, February 7, 2020

America’s WALL OF SHAME



America’s WALL OF SHAME

The Constitution of the United States of America was written by men who lived under a tyranny and knew it intimately. They designed the Constitution as an experimental, new way to prevent any person from becoming a tyrant.

The essential element of the Constitution which attempts to control nascent tyrants is that no person is immune from the law. Even though the office of President was granted large power and discretion, illegal acts by the sitting President are subject to review by Congress and by an impeachment trial if the House thinks it appropriate.

Now, in 2020, the Constitution is under attack from outside tyrants including Vladimir Putin who wish to weaken or destroy the mechanisms in the Constitution which prevent tyrants from taking power.

For the first time since its adoption on June 21, 1788, several native born American citizens are supporting those destructive efforts with the powers at their disposal. These American citizens create and maintain the WALL OF SHAME in order to shield trump from accountability for his crimes.  

The phrase ‘Wall of Shame’ was coined by West Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt to refer to the physical wall that kept East Germans from traveling to West Berlin. The phrase has been used several times since, mostly to refer to actual physical walls. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Shame]

The WALL OF SHAME referred to here is neither a physical wall nor brick and mortar nor reinforced concrete; it is much stronger than that.

America’s WALL OF SHAME is forged in the minds of the men who serve trump from their raw emotions of fear, greed and anger. This WALL enables a corrupt administration to hide behind it and to perform crimes and outrages with no fear of punishment.

America’s WALL OF SHAME allows illegal acts to flourish with no oversight – exactly the malaise the Constitution was designed to prevent. They are free to openly flout the Rule of Law and to punish critics like Alexander Vindman and Marie Yovanovitch, steal from the public Treasury, appoint relatives with no experience into positions of trust and authority, overturn military trials and generally use the powers of the United States to further their personal interests at the expanse of the Public Interest.

Here is a partial list of the men and their offices who build and maintain America’s WALL OF SHAME

1.      Criminal businessman and criminally corrupt and impeached office holder, Donald John Trump.

2.      KGB assassin and President of Russia, Vladimir Putin [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia]

3.      The Republican United States Senators who blocked evidence and witnesses during trump’s Impeachment Trial and then voted him acquitted after hearing no testimony nor seeing any documents. [https://www.npr.org/2020/02/05/801429948/not-guilty-trump-acquitted-on-2-articles-of-impeachment-as-historic-trial-closes]

4.      Attorney General William Barr who sequestered the Mueller report and denied its conclusions while preventing its public examination and then issued an order forbidding any DOJ investigations of political campaigns unless approved by him, effectively allowing further foreign interference in American elections. [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/barr-says-no-investigations-2020-candidates-campaigns-without-his-approval-n1131836?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma]

5.      McConnell, Mitch, U. S. Senator, Senate Majority Leader - Vows to block any expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to US citizens, submitted by  Bob Fisher April 11, 2019.’Mitch McConnell let slip the GOP's true health care agenda on Fox News today: "Medicare for all? Not as long as I'm majority leader. It ought to be called Medicare for none." MEDICARE FOR NONE... Fox even slapped Mitch's new slogan onto the Fox News chyron. This photo should be following the GOP around for the next couple of years.

6.      Steven Miller, White nationalist, Imigration adviser to trump, architect of cruel and deadly United States Immigration Policies. [https://americasvoice.org/blog/who-is-stephen-miller/]

7.      Pat Cippilone, trump attorney who was present at meeting when trump told Bolton to pressure Ukraine for Biden investigation, then denies there was any pressure in Senate trial. An ethics violation and may be a crime. [https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lead-attorney-in-impeachment-trial-could-also-be-witness-2020-1]

8.      Jay Sekulow, trump attorney who is paid millions from Charity ACLJ. A half dozen lawyers employed by the non-profit ACLJ are named in recent Senate legal briefs as members of Trump’s defense team — including one of Sekulow’s sons. The ACLJ, as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, is barred under IRS rules from engaging in partisan political activities. [https://fortune.com/2020/01/31/jay-sekulow-trump-lawyer/]


9.      Accused Criminal Rudy Giuliani, trump attorney and political errand boy. [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/24/rudy-giuliani-jail-056570]

Paul, Rand, United States Senator, criminally identifies whistleblower in public, thereby making it less likely that others will come forward and perhaps encouraging cowards to kill the person identified. [https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/whistleblower-expert-rand-pauls-retaliatory-outing-of-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-was-criminal/?fbclid=IwAR0IAvKcG4buHEwrHcfDK9s9ZkFXsHeaqkqmsFJTivPbw7ma7eyJ_z1y1os]
l
Len Blavatnik: 'Aside from the large sums of campaign cash doled out to leading Republicans, Blavatnik has largely been considered problematic by the media and Beltway establishment because of his documented ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian leader’s inner circle.' Now he is funding Buttigieg according to [https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pete-buttigieg-funded-by-russian-linked-oligarch-who-supports-trump-and-mcconnell/?fbclid=IwAR06AUZIFlmG1hpmIgdPk7XSiinT7zxg7hndMUmraN9gn3XOTXxIGTmvKzI]

The list of WALL builders can go on and readers are invited to suggest additional candidates via the comments section below.

The cumulative effect of this WALL is to damage and possibly destroy the legal foundation of the United States of America. This site will gather published articles and statements from first hand participants as a compilation of previously published or disclosed statements which discuss the actors and actions which subvert the Constitution. It will attempt to describe actions which have the effect of undermining the Constitution. Actions which weaken the rule of law will be discussed whether they result of the action is a personal gain for an individual or a broader harm to the rule of law.

While some of the actions may be determined by others to be criminal, this site makes no such determination. If there is a criminal action discussed here, the site will rely on law enforcement to bring any criminal charges. This site does not make any new accusations nor does it endorse or validate in any way the nature of the accusations discussed here.

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Enabling Act of 1933



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933


Hitler's Reichstag speech promoting the bill was delivered at the Kroll Opera House, following the Reichstag fire.

The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 1933, formally titled Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich"),[1] was an amendment to the Weimar Constitution[citation needed] that gave the German Cabinet—in effect, Chancellor the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. The Enabling Act gave Hitler plenary powers and followed on the heels of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which had abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship. 

The act passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 23 March 1933,[2][3][4] and was signed by President Paul von Hindenburg later that day. The act stated that it was to last four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice. 

The law was enacted by the Reichstag (meeting at the Kroll Opera House), where non-Nazi members were surrounded and threatened by members of the SA and the SS. The Communists had already been repressed and were not allowed to be present or to vote, and some Social Democrats were kept away as well. In the end most of those present voted for the act, except for the Social Democrats, who voted against it.[5] 

Background

After being appointed Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933, Hitler asked President von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag. A general election was scheduled for 5 March 1933. A secret meeting was held between Hitler and 20 to 25 industrialists at the official residence of Hermann Göring in the Reichstag Presidential Palace, aimed at financing the election campaign of the Nazi Party.[6][7] 

The burning of the Reichstag, depicted by the Nazis as the beginning of a communist revolution, resulted in the presidential Reichstag Fire Decree, which among other things suspended freedom of press and habeas corpus rights just five days before the election. Hitler used the decree to have the Communist Party's offices raided and its representatives arrested, effectively eliminating them as a political force. 

Although they received five million more votes than in the previous election, the Nazis failed to gain an absolute majority in parliament, and depended on the 8% of seats won by their coalition partner, the German National People's Party, to reach 52% in total. 

To free himself from this dependency, Hitler had the cabinet, in its first post-election meeting on 15 March, draw up plans for an Enabling Act which would give the cabinet legislative power for four years. The Nazis devised the Enabling Act to gain complete political power without the need of the support of a majority in the Reichstag and without the need to bargain with their coalition partners. 

Preparations and negotiations

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment. Thus, its passage required the support of two-thirds of those deputies who were present and voting. A quorum of two-thirds of the entire Reichstag was required to be present in order to call up the bill. 

The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) were expected to vote against the Act. The government had already arrested all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies under the Reichstag Fire Decree. The Nazis expected the parties representing the middle class, the Junkers and business interests to vote for the measure, as they had grown weary of the instability of the Weimar Republic and would not dare to resist. 
Hitler believed that with the Centre Party members' votes, he would get the necessary two-thirds majority. Hitler negotiated with the Centre Party's chairman, Ludwig Kaas, a Catholic priest, finalising an agreement by 22 March. Kaas agreed to support the Act in exchange for assurances of the Centre Party's continued existence, the protection of Catholics' civil and religious liberties, religious schools and the retention of civil servants affiliated with the Centre Party. It has also been suggested that some members of the SPD were intimidated by the presence of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) throughout the proceedings.[8] 

Some historians, such as Klaus Scholder, have maintained that Hitler also promised to negotiate a Reichskonkordat with the Holy See, a treaty that formalised the position of the Catholic Church in Germany on a national level. Kaas was a close associate of Cardinal Pacelli, then Vatican Secretary of State (and later Pope Pius XII). Pacelli had been pursuing a German concordat as a key policy for some years, but the instability of Weimar governments as well as the enmity of some parties to such a treaty had blocked the project.[9] The day after the Enabling Act vote, Kaas went to Rome in order to, in his own words, "investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state".[10] However, so far no evidence for a link between the Enabling Act and the Reichskonkordat signed on 20 July 1933 has surfaced. 

Text

As with most of the laws passed in the process of Gleichschaltung, the Enabling Act is quite short, especially considering its implications. The full text, in German[11] and English, follows: 

Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich 
Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich 
Der Reichstag hat das folgende Gesetz beschlossen, das mit Zustimmung des Reichsrats hiermit verkündet wird, nachdem festgestellt ist, daß die Erfordernisse verfassungsändernder Gesetzgebung erfüllt sind:

The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled: 

Artikel 1 Article 1 
Reichsgesetze können außer in dem in der Reichsverfassung vorgesehenen Verfahren auch durch die Reichsregierung beschlossen werden. Dies gilt auch für die in den Artikeln 85 Abs. 2 und 87 der Reichsverfassung bezeichneten Gesetze.

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government[12] of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[13] 

Artikel 2 Article 2 

Die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Reichsgesetze können von der Reichsverfassung abweichen, soweit sie nicht die Einrichtung des Reichstags und des Reichsrats als solche zum Gegenstand haben. Die Rechte des Reichspräsidenten bleiben unberührt.

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain unaffected. 

Artikel 3 Article 3 
Die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Reichsgesetze werden vom Reichskanzler ausgefertigt und im Reichsgesetzblatt verkündet. Sie treten, soweit sie nichts anderes bestimmen, mit dem auf die Verkündung folgenden Tage in Kraft. Die Artikel 68 bis 77 der Reichsverfassung finden auf die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Gesetze keine Anwendung.

Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[14] 

Artikel 4 Article 4 

Verträge des Reiches mit fremden Staaten, die sich auf Gegenstände der Reichsgesetzgebung beziehen, bedürfen für die Dauer der Geltung dieser Gesetze nicht der Zustimmung der an der Gesetzgebung beteiligten Körperschaften. Die Reichsregierung erläßt die zur Durchführung dieser Verträge erforderlichen Vorschriften. 

Treaties of the Reich with foreign states, which relate to matters of Reich legislation, shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the legislative authorities. The Reich government shall enact the legislation necessary to implement these agreements. 

Artikel 5 Article 5 

Dieses Gesetz tritt mit dem Tage seiner Verkündung in Kraft. Es tritt mit dem 1. April 1937 außer Kraft; es tritt ferner außer Kraft, wenn die gegenwärtige Reichsregierung durch eine andere abgelöst wird.

This law enters into force on the day of its proclamation. It expires on 1 April 1937; it expires furthermore if the present Reich government is replaced by another. 
Articles 1 and 4 gave the government the right to draw up the budget and approve treaties without input from the Reichstag. 

Act (page 1)

Act (page 2 with signatures)
Passage
Debate within the Centre Party continued until the day of the vote, 23 March 1933, with Kaas advocating voting in favour of the act, referring to an upcoming written guarantee from Hitler, while former Chancellor Heinrich Brüning called for a rejection of the Act. The majority sided with Kaas, and Brüning agreed to maintain party discipline by voting for the Act.[15] 

The Reichstag, led by its President, Hermann Göring, changed its rules of procedure to make it easier to pass the bill. Under the Weimar Constitution, a quorum of two-thirds of the entire Reichstag membership was required to be present in order to bring up a constitutional amendment bill. In this case, 432 of the Reichstag's 647 deputies would have normally been required for a quorum. However, Göring reduced the quorum to 378 by not counting the 81 KPD deputies. Despite the virulent rhetoric directed against the Communists, the Nazis did not formally ban the KPD right away. Not only did they fear a violent uprising, but they hoped the KPD's presence on the ballot would siphon off votes from the SPD. However, it was an open secret that the KPD deputies would never be allowed to take their seats; they were thrown in jail as quickly as the police could track them down. Courts began taking the line that since the Communists were responsible for the fire, KPD membership was an act of treason. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the KPD was banned as of 6 March, the day after the election.[16] 

Göring also declared that any deputy who was "absent without excuse" was to be considered as present, in order to overcome obstructions. Leaving nothing to chance, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to detain several SPD deputies. A few others saw the writing on the wall and fled into exile. 

Later that day, the Reichstag assembled under intimidating circumstances, with SA men swarming inside and outside the chamber.[15] Hitler's speech, which emphasised the importance of Christianity in German culture,[17] was aimed particularly at appeasing the Centre Party's sensibilities and incorporated Kaas' requested guarantees almost verbatim. Kaas gave a speech, voicing the Centre's support for the bill amid "concerns put aside", while Brüning notably remained silent. 

Only SPD chairman Otto Wels spoke against the Act, declaring that the proposed bill could not "destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible." Kaas had still not received the written constitutional guarantees he had negotiated, but with the assurance it was being "typed up", voting began. Kaas never received the letter.[15][page needed] 

At this stage, the majority of deputies already supported the bill, and any deputies who might have been reluctant to vote in favour were intimidated by the SA troops surrounding the meeting. In the end, all parties except the SPD voted in favour of the Enabling Act. With the KPD banned and 26 SPD deputies arrested or in hiding, the final tally was 444 in favour of the Enabling Act against 94 (all Social Democrats) opposed. The Reichstag had adopted the Enabling Act with the support of 83% of the deputies. The session took place under such intimidating conditions that even if all SPD deputies had been present, it would have still passed with 78.7% support. The same day in the evening, the Reichsrat also gave its approval, unanimously and without prior discussion.[18] The Act was then signed into law by President Hindenburg. 

Consequences

Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control. These laws could (with certain exceptions) even deviate from the Constitution. The Act effectively eliminated the Reichstag as active players in German politics. While its existence was protected by the Enabling Act, for all intents and purposes it reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler's speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws. Within three months of the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on 14 July by a law that made the Nazi Party the only legally permitted party in the country. With this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: "I set for myself one aim ... to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!"[19] 

During the negotiations between the government and the political parties, it was agreed that the government should inform the Reichstag parties of legislative measures passed under the Enabling Act. For this purpose, a working committee was set up, co-chaired by Hitler and Centre Party chairman Kaas. However, this committee met only three times without any major impact, and rapidly became a dead letter even before all other parties were banned. 

Though the Act had formally given legislative powers to the government as a whole, these powers were for all intents and purposes exercised by Hitler himself. After its passage, there were no longer serious deliberations in Cabinet meetings. Its meetings became more and more infrequent after 1934, and it never met in full after 1938. 

Due to the great care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality, the Enabling Act was renewed twice, in 1937 and 1941. However, its renewal was practically assured since all other parties were banned. Voters were presented with a single list of Nazis and Nazi-approved "guest" candidates under far-from-secret conditions. In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every citizen, effectively extending the provisions of the Enabling Act for the duration of the war.[20] 

Ironically, two, and possibly three, of the penultimate measures Hitler took to consolidate his power in 1934 violated the Enabling Act. In February 1934, the Reichsrat, representing the states, was abolished even though Article 2 of the Enabling Act specifically protected the existence of both the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. It can be argued that the Enabling Act had been breached two weeks earlier by the Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich, which transferred the states' powers to the Reich and effectively left the Reichsrat impotent. Article 2 stated that laws passed under the Enabling Act could not affect the institutions of either chamber. In August, Hindenburg died, and Hitler seized the president's powers for himself in accordance with a law passed the previous day. Article 2 stated that the president's powers were to remain "undisturbed," which has long been interpreted to mean that it forbade Hitler from tampering with the presidency. A 1932 amendment to the constitution made the president of the High Court of Justice, not the chancellor, first in the line of succession to the presidency—and even then on an interim basis pending new elections.[15] However, the Enabling Act provided no remedy for any violations of Article 2, and these actions were never challenged in court. 

In his book, The Coming of the Third Reich British historian Richard J. Evans argued that the Enabling Act was legally invalid. He contended that Göring had no right to arbitrarily reduce the quorum required to bring the bill up for a vote. While the Enabling Act only required the support of two-thirds of those present and voting, two-thirds of the entire Reichstag's membership had to be present in order for the legislature to consider a constitutional amendment. Evans argued that Göring was not required to count the KPD deputies in order to get the Enabling Act passed, he was required to "recognize their existence" by counting them for purposes of the quorum needed to call it up, making Göring's refusal to do so "an illegal act." (Even if the Communists had been present and voting, the atmosphere of the sitting was such that the Act would have still passed with, at the very least, 68.7 percent support.) He also argued that the act's passage in the Reichsrat was tainted by the overthrow of the state governments.[16] 

Portrayal in films
The 2003 film Hitler: The Rise of Evil contains a scene portraying the passage of the Enabling Act. The portrayal in the film is inaccurate, with the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree (which in practice, as the name states, was a decree issued by President Hindenburg weeks before the Enabling Act) merged into the Act. Non-Nazi members of the Reichstag, including Vice-Chancellor von Papen, are shown objecting. In reality the Act met little resistance, with only the centre-left Social Democratic Party voting against passage. 

The same film also shows Hermann Göring, the then speaker of the house, begin singing "Deutschlandlied". Nazi representatives then stand and immediately join in with Göring, all other party members join in too, with everyone performing the Hitler salute. In reality, this never happened. 

References
1.
•  Rabinbach, Anson; Gilman, Sander L. (2013). The Third Reich Sourcebook. p. 52. ISBN 0520276833. 
•  •  "The Reichstag Fire and the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933 | Britannica Blog". blogs.britannica.com. Retrieved 30 March 2017. 
•  •  (www.dw.com), Deutsche Welle. "The law that 'enabled' Hitler's dictatorship | Germany | DW.COM 23 March 2013". DW.COM. Retrieved 30 March 2017. 
•  •  Mason, K.J. Republic to Reich: A History of Germany 1918–1945. McGraw-Hill. 
•  •  Kitson, Alison. Germany, 1858–1990: Hope, Terror, and Revival, pages 153–154 (Oxford U. Press 2001). 
•  •  Daniela Kahn (2006). Die Steurung der Wirtschaft durch Recht im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland. Das Beispiel der Reichsgruppe Industrie. ISBN 978-3-465-04012-5. 
•  •  Rüdiger Jungbluth (2002). Die Quandts. Ihr leiser Aufstieg zur mächtigsten Wirtschaftsdynastie Deutschlands. ISBN 3-593-36940-0. 
•  •  Martin Collier, From Kaiser to Fuhrer: Germany, 1900–45, p131 
•  •  Klaus Scholder "The Churches and the Third Reich" volume 1 pp 160–1 
•  •  Letter from Kaas to von Bergen, German ambassador to the Vatican, translation quoted in Scholder, p. 247 
•  •  Uwe Brodersen, Gesetze des NS-Staates, p. 22 
•  •  The word government, as used here, means just the chancellor and the cabinet, comparable to the usage of the word in the United Kingdom, and not the entire national government as it is used in the United States. 
•  •  Article 85 outlined the process by which the Reichstag and Reichsrat approved the Reich budget. Article 87 restricted government borrowing. 
•  •  Articles 68 to 77 stipulated the procedures for enacting legislation in the Reichstag. 
•  •  William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Touchstone Edition, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990 
•  •  Evans, Richard J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. New York City: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-0141009759. 
•  •  "Adolf Hitler: Compromises with Atheism Destroy Religious, Ethical Values". about.com. Retrieved 2 December 2016. 
•  •  Wheaton, Eliot Barculo (1968). The Nazi Revolution 1933–35. p. 269. 
•  •  Nationalbibliothek, Österreichische. "ÖNB-ALEX – Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt Teil I 1867–1945". alex.onb.ac.at. Retrieved 14 October 2016. 
20. •  "HITLER SEIZES LIFE AND DEATH RULE OF NAZIS (April 27, 1942)". Retrieved 14 October 2016.