SHOW AUDIO: Link is usually posted within about 72 hours of show broadcast. We take callers during this show at 713-526-5738.

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.)

Please take a moment to choose THINKWING RADIO from the drop-down list when you donate.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.

TOPICS:  SUPPORT KPFT!  Revote: UPDATE on DOCKET# 16-1464, Supreme Court: “The Citizens Case For a New Election”, Senate GOP effort to unwind the ACA collapses Monday, North Korea Says Trump’s Latest Threat Is a ‘Declaration of War’

(Part 2 of the Flood Control discussion is TBD, possibly in October)

GUEST:  Alex Mohajer, Political Writer and Commentator. Alex holds a Bachelor of Arts from U.C. Berkeley (where he studied politics with liberal hero Robert Reich), and a Juris Doctorate from Chapman University School of Law (where he studied constitutional law with conservative hero Hugh Hewitt). At law school, he was named by his graduating class as ‘Most Likely To Be Held In Contempt.’

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]:

 “The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.” — Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, August 3, 1914

1. Revote: UPDATE on DOCKET# 16-1464, Supreme Court: “The Citizens Case For a New Election”
   1. Distributed to the justices today, September 25, 2017. No decision made as of 6:30 PM [CDT.]

2. Kenya: Presidential elections and the rule of law, by John Mukum Mbaku Wednesday, September 6, 2017 [brookings.edu]

   1. The ruling was historic and represents an important win for Kenyans and the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which has not yet been released in full, supports the opposition’s claims. The court stated in its official opinion to Kenyans that the IEBC had “failed, neglected, or refused to conduct the presidential election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Constitution.”

3. Senate GOP effort to unwind the ACA collapses Monday, By Sean Sullivan and Juliet Eilperin , September 25, 2017 at 6:20 PM [Washington Post]

   1. The latest Republican effort to unwind the Affordable Care Act collapsed on Monday, as a third GOP senator announced her opposition to the proposal and left it short of the votes it would need to win passage.
   2. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced she could not back the measure authored by Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), moments after a much-anticipated partial analysis of the measure by the Congressional Budget Office forecast that “millions” of Americans would lose coverage by 2026 if it was enacted.
   3. Two GOP senators — and Rand Paul (Ky.) and John McCain (Ariz.) — had already come out against the bill, even after a new round of drafting, and Collins’ announcement means it lacks the votes to pass.
4. North Korea Says Trump’s Latest Threat Is a ‘Declaration of War’, byEdith M. Lederer / AP [TIME] Updated: 4:18 PM ET | Originally published: 12:10 PM ET
   1. North Korea’s top diplomat said Monday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s weekend tweet was a “declaration of war” and North Korea has the right to retaliate by shooting down U.S. bombers, even in international airspace.
   2. Under the U.N. Charter, [Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho] said, North Korea has the right to self-defense and “every right” to take countermeasures, “including the right to shoot down the United States strategic bombers even when they’re not yet inside the airspace border of our country.”
   3. Hours later, the White House pushed back on Ri’s claim, saying: ‘We have not declared war’ on North Korea. The Trump administration, referring to Trump’s tweet, also clarified it is not seeking to overthrow North Korea’s government.
5. The Lamps are Going Out in Asia, By: Joseph DeThomas, September 25, 2017 [38 North is a project of The US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).]
   1. US President Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 19 may well come to be viewed as “historic,” but not in a good way. … [T]he substance of Trump’s speech—including threats to both North Korea and the Iran deal—may have closed any remaining doors to a diplomatic resolution to this crisis surrounding North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Moreover, Trump’s speech and the North Korean reaction seem to have set us on a path that could very well end in a major war in Asia.

TOPICS FROM PREVIOUS WEEKS:

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

ALEC’s Application for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States

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.

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.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.

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

 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]

__________________________________________________________________