SHOW AUDIO: Link is usually posted within about 72 hours of show broadcast. We take callers during this show.

TOPIC:  SUPPORT KPFT! Comey Testimony, NSA Leak on Election Hacking, Decoding Trump’s Foreign Policy, Privatizing Air Traffic Control, More

GUEST: OPEN FORUM

Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio), a listener call-in show  airing live every Monday night from 9-10 PM (CT) on KPFT-FM 90.1 (Houston). My engineer is Bob Gartner.

Listen live on the radio or on the internet from anywhere in the world! When the show is live, we take calls at 713-526-5738. (Long distance charges may apply.)

For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:

• You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts;
  

  Houston Mayor Annise Parker [L] with Mike, just before the show. (Dec. 7, 2015)

• An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.

SIGNOFF QUOTE[s]:

 

 

 

 

1. Is It Time for the U.S. to Rein in the Presidency? Two historians consider whether it’s time to raise the possibility of decentralization amid frustrations with the federal government. By Julian E. Zelizer and Morton Keller [Theatlantic.Com] Jun 9, 2017
2. Trump as Julius Caesar: anger over play misses Shakespeare’s point, says scholar – Corporate sponsors have pulled funding amid controversy over an assassination scene – but the play argues against violence, says Stephen Greenblatt, by Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) Monday 12 June 2017 13.54 EDT Last modified on Monday 12 June 2017 17.21 EDT
   1. Gregg Henry, as Julius Caesar, bears a clear resemblance to the US president in the Public Theater’s production.
   2. When a blond Julius Caesar bounded on stage this weekend with a red tie and a svelte wife with a Slovenian accent, the New York audience laughed.
   3. They laughed at Caesar’s punchy rhetoric and big hand gestures and susceptibility to flattery. They giggled at Calpurnia’s mincing gait and slinky, Melania-inspired wardrobe, and at Octavius Caesar, a Jared Kushner-like nerd wearing a bulletproof vest over his blue blazer.
   4. They shouted with glee when one of Caesar’s opponents declared, exasperated, that ordinary Romans loved him so much they would forgive him “if Caesar had stabbed their mothers on Fifth Avenue”.
   5. But when Caesar’s enemies took out their knives and killed the Trump-like leader on the senate floor, no one was laughing.
   6. On Sunday, two of the Public Theater’s corporate sponsors, Bank of America and Delta Airlines, announced they were pulling their financial support for the production over the depiction of Trump-as-Caesar being assassinated.
   7. Fox News had reported on Sunday: “NYC Play Appears to Depict Assassination of Trump”,
   8. The original Fox News article did not note until the very end of the story that the play in question was not a controversial new anti-Trump work but Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, a play first performed around 1599.
   9. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, shared the Fox News story on Twitter Sunday, with the comment: “I wonder how much of this ‘art’ is funded by taxpayers? Serious question, when does ‘art’ become political speech, and does that change things?”
   10. The National Endowment for the Arts, a federal funding agency whose budget Trump has vowed to slash, greets visitors to its homepage with the message: “No taxpayer dollars support Shakespeare in the Park’s production of Julius Caesar.”
   11. Corporate sponsorship, as the theater announces before many productions, helps keep the tickets free for the public. But at least two of the corporate sponsors have backed away from their commitment over the choice of such current political themes in a 400-year-old play – something that stagings of Julius Caesar have done over and over and over again.
   12. For anyone who has seen the Public’s production – or read Julius Caesar – the message is not particularly ambiguous. Julius Caesar is not a pro-assassination play.
   13. “Our production of Julius Caesar in no way advocates violence towards anyone,” a Public Theater spokeswoman said in a statement. “Shakespeare’s play, and our production, make the opposite point: those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic means pay a terrible price and destroy the very thing they are fighting to save.
   14. Stephen Greenblatt, a leading Shakespeare scholar at Harvard University, said: “What’s kind of amusing, in a slightly grim way, about this is to have Julius Caesar of all things suddenly the point at which the right can no longer endure free expression, which they’ve been hollering for … Every time they send out a crazy provocateur on campus, they go bonkers if there are protests.”
   15. The point of the play, Greenblatt said, is that it can be dangerous to get what you think you want – and that the assassination of a hated leader “could bring an end to the very republic you’re trying to save”.
   16. George Brunner, …[a] 73-year-old, an actor in his youth and a middle school English teacher in New York for 28 years, said: “If the banks and the airlines think that the administration will punish them, they will withdraw their support. Otherwise they will be generous patrons of the arts,” Brunner said. “We live in a bullshit world.
   17. “If you want to promote the arts and you believe in the freedom of expression, then you don’t withdraw your support.”
   18. Shakespeare and Kathy Griffin: controversial art keeps targeting Trump, by Jamiles Lartey (@JamilesLartey) [TheGuardian] Monday 12 June 2017 13.56 EDT
3. Exclusive: In latest job, Jim DeMint wants to give Tea Party ‘ a new mission’,by Fredreka Schouten , [USA TODAY] Published 6:02 a.m. ET June 12, 2017
   1. Former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, ousted last month as head of the Heritage Foundation think tank, is joining a fast-growing, conservative movement that is pushing states to seek a constitutional convention to rein in federal spending and power.
   2. DeMint, a prominent figure among the Tea Party activists who helped Republicans seize control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, will serve as a senior adviser to the Convention of the States Project, providing a jolt to its efforts to marshal grassroots support for a state-led movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.
   3. Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two avenues to propose amendments: Two-thirds of each house of Congress can vote to do so or two-thirds of the states – 34 in total – can request the convention.
   4. In either case, three-fourths of the states – or 38 states – must ratify any amendment proposed by convention delegates.
   5. The movement DeMint is joining asks for a convention covering three sweeping topics: imposing “fiscal restraint” on Washington, reducing the federal government’s authority over states and imposing term limits on federal officials.
   6. The group said the convention that results from the state applications could also propose a range of amendments from one requiring the federal government to balance the budget or to one ending lifetime appointments for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.
   7. At the center of the effort: Mark Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, and his nonprofit, Citizens for Self-Governance. Meckler has teamed up with other conservative groups, including American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to advance the plan at the state level.
   8. Later this summer, he will travel to Denver to address conservative state legislators at ALEC’s annual gathering. ALEC, whose members include Republican lawmakers and business interests, writes model legislation, allowing conservative lawmakers to quickly replicate bills across the country. It has adopted the Article V language advanced by Meckler’s group.
   9. Legal questions abound: Would the convention be open to the public? Is it fair to allow tiny states like Maine to have the same power as populous states like California at a convention? And how would states prevent a “runaway convention” that could make wholesale changes to the Constitution on everything from religion and gun rights?
   10. Proponent[s] say their application limits of the scope of a convention to amendments that deal with federal term limits, fiscal restraints on the federal government and limits on Washington’s power.
   11. Bu[t] some legal experts question whether organizers can limit the topics at all. “When there’s a constitutional convention, in a sense, all bets are off,” said Michael Gerhardt, an expert on the Constitution and a law professor at the University of North Carolina. “I would think almost anything would be fair game.”
   12. As the under-the-radar movement gains steam, some liberal groups and Democratic legislators are scrambling to block proponents from reaching the two-thirds threshold. This year, New Mexico, Maryland and Nevada all rescinded their applications for a convention, some of them on the books for decades. Delaware did so last year.
   13. Opponents say the topics described by the convention advocates are broad enough to bring sweeping change. “This idea of opening up our Constitution, which gives everyone in the country our basic protections, is a bad idea, particularly in this hyper-partisan environment,” said Viki Harrison, the executive director of Common Cause New Mexico. She helped lead the successful effort to yank New Mexico’s convention applications — one of which dated to 1951.
4. ALEC’s Application for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States
5. Article V, U.S. Constitution (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration)
   1. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
6. FREE SPEECH: What’s constitutionally guaranteed and what’s culturally expected
   1. 1^st Amendment:  First Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
   2. The Amendment protects us against Government interference in speech, press and religion.
   3. NON-government interference – private businesses, publishers. Etc. – is more culturally entrenched but usually not illegal.
      1. The Amendment protects us against Government interference in speech, press and religion.
      2. NON-government interference – private businesses, publishers. Etc. – is more culturally entrenched but usually not illegal.
7. A Civics discussion:
   1. Our founders did not design our government to be “efficient”. They designed it to be “safe”.
   2. People who say that they want government to run like a business miss the point: Government is NOT a business.
   3. People who say that they want government to run like a household miss the point: Government is NOT a household.
   4. Government is a Sovereign, which is an entirely different and unique thing, totally unlike a business or a household.
   5. No one branch of government is meant to be ‘supreme’. The 3 branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – were designed to be co-equal.
   6. The tug-of-war that goes on among them – this inefficient, tug-of-war that goes on among them – is designed to slow things down, and make them “safe” but “inefficient’.
   7. In today’s terminology, the inefficiency designed into our government is not a “bug”. It’s a “feature”.
   8. I’ve said for many years that people who have run big businesses should not be politicians, and certainly should not be president. If there was ever an example of why I believe that, it’s Trump.
   9. We are now experiencing the wisdom of that “feature”, as the Trump regime attempts to establish its Supremacy over the other branches.
8. Leaked NSA Report Suggests Russian Hacking Could Have Affected Election Day Itself, By Ed Kilgore  [NYMAG.COM/DAILY/INTELLIGENCER] June 5, 2017 6:52 pm
   1. So “Comey Week” in Washington has taken a new turn with the disclosure by The Intercept of a National Security Agency report documenting a sophisticated Russian military intelligence operation before the 2016 election aimed at compromising state and local election infrastructure systems. The document has been subsequently verified as a legitimate by CBS News.
   2. There’s more smoke than fire in the report, which mainly establishes that the Russians were making an effort to gain access to voter registration database information—though that’s a big deal given the impact of voter registration information on access to the ballot. But it also opened up the possibility the hackers got access to vote-counting machinery as well, particularly in states with electronic voting machines (which happen to include Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, two of the three states that decided the presidential election).
   3. More importantly, the report could change the scope of the various investigations by Congress, the FBI, and special prosecutor Bob Mueller of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections and possible Trump campaign collusion with that interference. Up until now we’ve mostly been focused on Russian (or Trump/Russian) efforts to change the external political dynamics of the election, such as WikiLeaks’ slow-drip release of Pedesta emails, and social media promotion of pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes. Now we’re talking about direct interference with the integrity of the election that made Trump president. And if that is even close to being established, then the possibility of Trump campaign collusion in such interference takes on a whole new dimension of horrific malfeasance, and potentially “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
   4. Contractor charged in NSA document leak case, Washington Post  – ‎1 hour ago‎
      1. A 25-year-old government contractor has been charged with mishandling classified information after authorities say she gave a top-secret National Security Agency document to a news organization.
9. America successfully tests ICBM defense system in the Pacific, By Associated Press [NY POST] May 30, 2017 | 4:47pm
   1. WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said it successfully used a “kill vehicle” to knock down an intercontinental ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday as North Korea ramps up its belligerent behavior, according to several reports.
   2. The test involved the Pentagon Missile Defense Agency launching an ICBM from a base in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and firing a ground-based rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California 4,200 miles away to intercept it.The intercept rocket released a 5-foot-long “kill vehicle” that collided with the mock warhead over the Pacific and destroyed it through the sheer force of the impact, an endeavor likened to shooting a bullet with a bullet.
10. NATO – Topic: Collective defence – Article 5
    1. Highlights
       1.  Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
       2. The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
       3. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
       4. NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, for instance in response to the situation in Syria and in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
       5. NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.
    2. TEXT: NATO  Article 5
       1. “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
       2. ii) Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
       3. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

LINKS:

• Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):
  1. The Ineligibility Clause, one of the two clauses often called the Emoluments Clause,^[1][2] and sometimes also referred to as the Incompatibility Clause^[3] or the Sinecure Clause,^[4] is found in Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It places limitations upon the employment of members of Congress and prohibits employees of the Executive Branch from serving in Congress during their terms in office. The name “Ineligibility Clause” is only used by a minority of writers, as compared to the name “Emoluments Clause”.^[1][2][5]
  2. The clause states: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
• Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. It supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state whether the Vice President becomes the President or Acting President if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency.^[1] The Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967.^[2]

• 1. Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
  2. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
  3. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
  4. Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
  5. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.^[3]
• Group will sue Trump over business’ foreign profits, By Cyra Master 2 hrs ago (The Hill) 1/22/2017 via MSN
  1. The Title of Nobility Clause [Also known as the Emoluments Clause] is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so–called “corrupting foreign influences”. This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section^[2] ~ Title of Nobility Clause – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause
  2. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) announced Sunday night it is bringing a suit “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution (the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause ) by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments.”
  3. At issue is Trump’s refusal to divest from his business or place his assets into a blind trust, which would separate him entirely from his business empire. He has said his adult sons will run his business while he is in office, that they will not conduct any foreign deals and will subject any domestic deals to an ethics review.

 SOURCES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO OTHER DISCUSSION:

======================================================

1. Trial Balloon for a Coup? Analyzing the news of the past 24 hours, by Yonatan Zunger
2. Four Freedoms, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy:
   1. Freedom of speech
   2. Freedom of worship
   3. Freedom from want
   4. Freedom from fear
   5. Roosevelt delivered his speech 11 months before the United States declared war on Japan, December 8, 1941. The State of the Union speech before Congress was largely about the national security of the United States and the threat to other democracies from world war that was being waged across the continents in the eastern hemisphere. In the speech, he made a break with the tradition of United States non-interventionism that had long been held in the United States. He outlined the U.S. role in helping allies already engaged in warfare.

• Differences between Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and neo-Conservatives
  • Left–right politics, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.^[9]
  • Greens and Libertarians: The yin and yang of our political future, by Dan Sullivan (originally appearing in Green Revolution, Volume 49, No. 2, summer, 1992)
    • … Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.
    • Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.
    • The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.
    • Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.^[5][6][7]
    • Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.^[8]

__________________________________________________________________