Who was the President of the US on the 13th of July 2013?

Wasn't it Barack Obama?

The post originally asked about the 9th of August 2014 is the date when Michael Brown was fatally shot by 28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri. That was the event that led to the "Black Lives Matter" movement. BLM was actually started on 13 July 2013.

Still, Barack Obama was president. And he had been president for 7 years when the Michael Brown incident happened: not George W. Bush or Donald Trump.

It seems there was the usual rioting following that incident. Let's toss in that it seems that like school shootings, the usual drill is: black youth is harmed by police, riots occur, then fuck all happens, only to repeat.

There were also riots in Baltimore after the 2015 shooting of Freddie Gray. Again: black youth is harmed by police, riots occur, then fuck all happens, only to repeat.

My point is that rioting has been used as a tool even during what should have been a racially positive period. But have the results been ever really been positive? Why would I need to be asking all this if there had been positive results.

If anything, the rioting and violence have led to a continuation of the problem. If not making the situation much worse.

I need to add in for good measure that black leaders endorsed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the 2016 and 2020 primaries. Both Clinton and Biden have a horrid record on race relations.

A riot may be the language of the unheard, but temper tantrums also don't get a positive response.

These consequences were actually foretold by some in the Civil Rights Movement, including the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is common on social media to see people quoting King’s statement that a riot is a “language of the unheard.” But in the same remarks from which this popular quote is drawn, King also stated that “riots are socially destructive and self-defeating.”

In February 1968, nine months before Richard Nixon’s election, King warned that increased rioting would lead to a “right-wing takeover.” He pointed to segregationist George Wallace’s presidential bid, saying, “Every time a riot develops, it helps George Wallace.”

“They’ll throw us into concentration camps,” he told supporters of the Poor People’s Campaign. “The Wallaces and [followers of the John Birch Society] will take over. The sick people and the fascists will be strengthened. They’ll cordon off the ghetto, and issue passes for us to get in and out. We cannot stand two more summers like last summer without leading inevitably to a rightwing takeover and a fascist state that will destroy the soul of the nation.”

it's time for a new tactic since the old one hasn't worked in 50 odd years. And King was correct about how things would turn out if rioting is the tactic of choice.

All the News that's fit to print?

Or "The US media is as liberal as the large corporations that own them."

Part of propaganda is to stir up the emotions.

And no country does it better than the good old USA!

Unfortunately, my reaction when I saw all the gushing on about the Kurds was to think: "When the fuck has the US ever really cared about the Kurds?"

That wasn't the response that the US Media was hoping to elicit from me. I was supposed to be upset about what was going on in Syria.

Well, in another way than it is a mistake that has come back to bite the US in the ass.

Trump talks about fake news, which the US Main Stream Media likes to pretend it isn't. But there is a definite bias there.

FAIR.org has a fantastic piece on how most of the reporting on the situation in Syria misrepresents the facts.

You might want to compare NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's comments to Erdogan to Trump's letter.

Not sure what to say about Trump's handling of the situation, but I will say he is the perfect distraction for what is really going on right now. It's really easy to blame Trump for a situation which should never been allowed to have happen.

What's the alternative?

I hear a lot of people criticising Trump for the Syria thing, but I don't see any alternative solutions being offered. The problem is that this was a time bomb where the US was acting with NATO ally Turkey in Syria.

The Kurds were good for being proxy troops for the US, but they were a problematic ally. First off, the Turks (and US) lists them as being terrorists. Secondly, the Kurds' loyalty was to themselves and their goal of a nation. That was a goal that the US could never honestly promise. And while the Kurds will happily fight anyone: they won't do it for someone else unless the someone else is going to protect them.

That leads to problem one: the Kurds will shift loyalties to who ever will protect them. They were fighting with Assad early in the conflict. The US lured them away, but the Kurds made it clear that they would switch back to Assad if the US stopped protecting them. The problem is that the military isn't the body that makes the decision: the politicians are. The military isn't supposed to question: it's supposed to obey.

And the military can't make too many friends in a place where there are rapidly changing allegiances such as the Syrian Civil War. Learn a lesson from the Kurds, your loyalty is to yourself first.

The Kurds were an American ally against ISIS, not Turkey. The United States made no commitment to protect the Kurds against the Turkish army, much less assist them in maintaining a degree of independence in northern Syria that I know about. The United States was entitled to pursue its own interests in the region without some form of formal agreement. Neither Trump nor Obama defined those interests in a way that would justify a deepening military engagement in Syria. 

Leaving the few soldiers in the Kurdish zone endangers American lives. The Generals who felt strongly could have disobeyed orders if they felt such a strong tie to the Kurds, but then the blame would fall on them for endangering their troops in a Turkish invasion.

Next problem: the NATO Treaty.  The Treaty is a formal agreement, unlike whatever was between the US and Kurds. The existence of a Treaty ruled out a military response of any sort. A no-fly zone would be a no-no. Nothing says betrayal like shooting down an Ally's airplane.

On the other hand, Congress could declare war on Turkey if they feel as strongly as they purport to, but they won't.

The only real options are economic or diplomatic. The only real difference between what I would have done and what Trump did would have been to get international action to prevent the Turkish invasion. I also would have begun working on an exit strategy earlier. The Turkish invasion of Syria was not something which was in any way a surprise, yet no one did anything to prevent the problem.

The big problem is that there is a lot of bluster here. Congress is blustering. The Generals are blustering. The Turks are blustering. Trump is Blustering.

It's easy to play the blame game, but this was a disaster waiting to happen.  Too many people failed to act to prevent the problem.

At this point, the US should take a deep breath and look at how it got into yet another mess.

See also:

• Trump’s Ending of Wars Could Derail the Democrats

If Barack Obama made a really stupid decision about US troop deployment: wouldn't we hear about it?

Something that Senator Lindsay Graham would describe as “the dumbest idea in the world.”

What I am describing is something that would put the US into conflict with a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member.

Something which should have had congressional approval before being implemented. Something along the lines of funding an organisation which the US State Department lists as being a terrorist organisation.

Yet, that is exactly the situation that happened in Syria. After all the person who was president when the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was Barack Obama.

There are a lot of things which stink to me about the US coverage of this event. The main one is the sudden sympathy for the Kurds.

But even more bothering is that Donald Trump is being blamed for something which sits squarely on Barack Obama's shoulders.

Yet even people who would have attacked Barack Obama are criticising Trump for this situation.

Trump was right? or who really committed treason?

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution (Article III, Section iii):

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.

Prosecutions under this section are rare since it requires the act to take place during war time.

I'm no fan of Donald Trump.

On the other hand, whose administration decided to arm a group on the US State Department's list of Terrorist organisations. An action that would eventually lead to conflict with a NATO treaty ally?

Of course, you can't just blame Obama since congress knew, but did nothing about it. In a previously posted video, Lindsay Graham asks about the Kurds being listed as terrorists. Sen. Graham was among the harshest critics of Trump’s decision this week. Graham was once sympathetic to Turkish concerns and called the partnership with the Syrian Kurds “the dumbest idea in the world” in an April 2016 Senate hearing, given the PKK connection (clip mentioned above).

The question is who in the US was in charge on September 22, 2014 when the US began its involvement in Syria!

See also:

• The US played down Turkey’s concerns about Syrian Kurdish forces. That couldn’t last.

I finally figured out where we can seriously pin some serious blame on Barack Obama

 Kweisi Mfume

The radical right in the US.

They would have had to make him up if he didn't really exist.

And even then they still make him up.

Anyway....

Yeah, I doubt they would care if it had been somebody such as Kweisi Mfume or Chaka Fattah since they were Frizzell Gerald Gray and Arthur Davenport before they took up the furren sounding names.  There would probably have been some inner comfort in that.

Barack Obama has always been Barack Obama.

And what's worse, his father was from Kenya. he even has relatives back in Kenya.

And they are of the Kitchen Toto variety, not the Happy Valley crew, which means Barack is definitely NOKD.

Even if Barack was born on US territory (and a US citizen because of that fact), not only does he sound furren--he kinda looks furren.  Kweisi and Chaka might sound furren, but deep down they aren't REALLY Africans.  If they wear African clothing  (e.g. a dashiki or kente cloth), it could be taken as dressing up.

But, if Barack Obama wears Kenyan garb--expect a shit storm.

My African Heritage

And, even if there are more Christians in Kenya (demographic religious breakdown of Kenya is Protestant 47.7%, Roman Catholic 23.5%, other Christian 11.9%, Muslim 11.2%, no religion 2.4%, African Traditional Religion 1.7%, Bahá'í Faith about 1%, Buddhism 0.3%, other 2%)--he is accused of being a Mooselim.  That says more about the ignorance of the accuser than Barack Obama.

The reality is that the hatred of Barack Obama goes beyond racism and goes into xenophobia and ignorance, since there are far more Christians in Kenya than Muslims.

So, just think of the relief if the person who had become president had been Kweisi Mfume or Chaka Fattah since they may sound furren, but deep down they are as American as well, Barack Obama.

Then again, it could be the right wing loonies' alzheimers is kicking in and they keep hearing "Obama Papa Mau Mau" in their heads.

Active, Inactive, Retired, suspended, and disbarred lawyers

Since it has become an issue with the Obamas, I have been asked about the differences between the categories of lawyer.

I would have to say that it is highly likely that the people making an issue of this are people who are unfamiliar with professional practise and licensing.  That is because professions such as medicine and law require that you are licensed to practise in a jurisdiction: otherwise, you can be liable for unauthorised practise of law (or medicine, etc.).

If one quits the active practise of a profession for whatever reason, they may want to switch to retired or inactive status, which is different from being suspended or disbarred: although I know that being inactive, suspended, or disbarred requires the person to petition for reinstatement before resuming practise.

On the other hand, being inactive is not a statement that the person is unfit for practise: merely that they no longer practise law for whatever reason.  This is the relevant section of Pennsylvania law regarding inactive status as a lawyer--204 Pa. Code § 93.146:

 (b)  Inactive Status. Enforcement Rule 219(j) provides that:
   (1)  An attorney who is not engaged in practice in Pennsylvania, has sold his or her practice pursuant to Rule 1.17 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, or is not required by virtue of his or her practice elsewhere to maintain active licensure in the Commonwealth may request inactive status or continue that status once assumed. The attorney shall file either the annual form required by §  93.142(b) and request inactive status or file Form DB-28 (Notice of Voluntary Assumption of Inactive Status). The attorney shall be removed from the roll of those classified as active until and unless such inactive attorney makes a request under paragraph (3) of this section for an administrative return to active status and satisfies all conditions precedent to the grant of such request; or files a petition for reinstatement under §  89.273(b) (relating to procedure for reinstatement of an attorney who has been on inactive status for more than three years, or who is on inactive status and had not been on active status at any time within the prior three years) and is granted reinstatement pursuant to the provisions of §  89.273(b) of these rules.
   (2)  An inactive attorney under this subsection (b) shall continue to file the annual form required by §  93.142(b) and shall pay an annual fee of $70.00. Noncompliance with this provision will result in the inactive attorney incurring late payment penalites, incurring a collection fee for any check in payment that has been returned to the Board unpaid, and being placed on administrative suspension in accordance with the provisions of §  93.144.
   (3)  Administrative Change in Status from Inactive Status to Active Status: An attorney on inactive status may request resumption of active status by filing Form DB-29 (Application for Resumption of Active Status) with the Attorney Registration Office. Resumption of active status shall be granted unless the inactive attorney is subject to an outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, unless the inactive attorney has sold his or her practice pursuant to Rule 1.17 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (see §  89.273(b)), unless the inactive status has been in effect for more than three years, or unless the inactive attorney had not been on active status at any time within the preceding three years (see §  89.273(b)), upon the payment of:
     (i)   the active fee for the registration year in which the application for resumption of active status is made or the difference between the active fee and the inactive fee that has been paid for that year; and
     (ii)   any collection fee or late payment penalty that may have been assessed pursuant to §  93.144 of these rules, prior to the inactive attorney’s request for resumption of active status.
     Where a check in payment of the fees and penalties has been returned to the Board unpaid, the Attorney Registration Office shall immediately return the attorney to inactive status, and the arrears shall not be deemed to have been paid until a collection fee, as established by the Board under §  93.142(b)(2), shall also have been paid.

In other words, one no longer practises in that jurisdiction and does not have to pay full licence fees or take continuing legal education (CLE).  That also applies to being retired (same section) although there is no fee associated with being retired. The annual fee for inactive status is less than the  annual fee assessed active attorneys, and inactive attorneys are exempt from paying the additional annual fees imposed upon active attorneys.

One can be reinstated to active status from inactive by petitioning the court and paying the fees for the period of being in inactive status.

Of course, one can not take new cases or actively practise law, yet remain on the active list, but one is obligated to pay the full licence fees and take CLE to remain active (if there is a CLE requirement) as well as any other obligations which come with being licenced.  Also, one cannot be listed on a firm's letterhead if one is inactive since they aren't supposed to be practising law.


Also, some jurisdictions make retirement final (as opposed to being inactive), which would mean that one would have to retake the bar if they wished to resume the practise of law.

Whether one remains active, inactive, or retired depends upon a lot of things, but ethical issues are not a part of that: the real question is more like will you be likely to practise your profession?  You would be better served by keeping your licence if the answer is yes.

On the other hand, some people do not need to practise law, but may wish to resume at some future time.

You have a problem if Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Not a question, but a statement since the Constitution that some people claim to respect and all that says (Article VI):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Repeat that last part just to make it clear to you who don't get that the US is a SECULAR Society (like it or not):

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That means it doesn't matter what religion Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney or anybody else for that matter) happens to be.

You might have missed that bit since that paragraph comes right after:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And if you don't think the founders would support this: guess again:

"Both House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia, the Design [purpose] in building not being to accommodate any particular Sect, but the Inhabitants in general, so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism [Islam] to us, he would find a Pulpit at his Service. "

As I said, you have a problem because the Constitution isn't on your side if you are trying to make someone's religion an issue in US politics.  In fact, religion would not intrude in US politics given the US's being a secular state--I only wish more people would be disgusted by this trend.

But, maybe some of you aren't  the strong supporters of the Constitution that you claim to be.

Or, maybe you just need to brush up on what exactly it is that you are supposed to be defending.

The US is a secular nation: understand that fact.