WILL IMPEACHMENT SOLVE THE PROBLEM ?

Of course there are many simple minded but well meaning liberal types out there who believe that impeaching trump will solve everything. But they are wrong .
The wars the u.s. is involved with will continue, and they will continue losing . The war on the poor and  oppressed minorities in the inner cities by the killer kkkops will also continue, and the prisons will remain full . Women will still be subjected to being degraded and objectified , and immigrants will be scapegoated for many of the country's issues .
So no, impeachment will not solve the country's problems, but it won't fucking hurt, that's for damn sure.

Editorial:

Impeachment: The High Stakes and the Future We Must Fight For

September 30, 2019 | revcom.us

The move this week by the Democrats to open an impeachment inquiry on Donald “Mein Trumpf” Trump is a high-stakes move with unpredictable dynamics and consequences: for the fascist movement headed by Trump and Pence and now holding power; for the liberal imperialists who have made this move; for the system as a whole; and for humanity, here and around the world. Nobody can say where this will all end up—which is precisely the point: while these have been “not normal” times all along, that “not normal” character has just gone to a whole other level.

We know that the different factions of those who rule this empire will act on their interests as they perceive them. But in order for revolutionaries to lead the masses of people to act on their most fundamental interests, we need to be able to distinguish how those find expression in this situation. And that requires understanding what got us here in the first place; and where humanity can, and needs to, go.

To get at this, we have to ask three questions:

What is happening?

Why is it happening?

And what are the stakes for humanity?

What Is Happening: A Crisis with Deep Roots In This System

For nearly three years, Donald Trump has headed up a fascist regime. They have committed one atrocity after another against different sections of the oppressed. They have not just ignored but have assaulted the rule of law and broken “the norms” of how the U.S. has been governed. They have brandished nuclear weapons and threatened countries with “obliteration,” they have run roughshod overturning the paltry and insufficient protections to the environment that did exist, and they have promoted religion and mocked science and the truth itself.

Yet during all this time the main Democratic leader, Speaker of the House Nancy “Piglosi” Pelosi, has refused to even consider impeaching Trump. To draw on Bob Avakian’s important piece “Individualism, BEB and the Illusion of ‘Painless Progress,’” Piglosi has feared three things: she has feared Trump himself and his possible defiance of any outcome against him and whether any verdict against him could actually be enforced (and/or whether the attempt to enforce it, successful or not, would set off even bigger cataclysms); she has feared the fascist supporters of the Trump/Pence regime and what they might resort to, or be led to resort to, should Trump be impeached, especially the fanatical Christian fascist core of it; and she has feared the oppressed and/or progressive-minded masses that the Democratic Party is “charged with” corralling and domesticating, should they be drawn into the streets by the heightened political turmoil that impeachment could bring. And so, as Trump violated rule after rule, with one impeachable offense after another… as his whole regime plunged ahead with fascist measures and with their plans to full-out consolidate a fascist regime… she consistently opposed any move toward impeachment.

Then, suddenly, last week, she changed her mind. We should ask ourselves: what may have triggered this?

A whistle-blower with access to the White House complained through channels that there had been a breach of national security on a phone call between Trump and the newly-elected president of the country of Ukraine. By law, such complaints have to go to certain members of Congress charged with oversight of national security. But this was blocked by Trump’s attorney general, and it was only released when word of this had leaked out and political pressure from other members of the ruling class became overwhelming.

What came to light was that Trump had blackmailed Ukraine by holding up military aid and asking them “as a favor” to dig up dirt on Trump’s main rival for the election, former vice-president Joe Biden.

Trump crossed three lines here. One, he blatantly broke the rules of the U.S. election process, drawing in a foreign power to help him defeat his opponent. These elections are seen by the rulers of the U.S. as key to “conferring legitimacy [and] assuring stability” (in the words of an extraordinary New York Times editorial on September 27 supporting impeachment, which was extraordinary both in its length and the prominence of its placement in the print edition).

Second, he was using the unique power of the presidency to subordinate and actually subvert what the rulers had agreed was in “U.S. national security interests”—military aid to Ukraine, aiding them against U.S. rival Russia—to his own individual interests. This not only violated the law, but could weaken the U.S. vis-à-vis its imperialist rivals.

Third, he was attacking Biden himself—possibly setting him up for criminal charges. This too crossed a line—a gangster message to his Democratic Party rivals in the ruling class that “we can take out any of you.” The fact that it was done on the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller who had been investigating Trump testified in Congress and the further fact that the regime brazenly tried to cover this up added even more fuel to the fire.

These are extremely sharp examples of a fascist regime shredding what have been the norms of how society has been governed and directly going after sections of the rulers, and prominent individuals within those sections, who have represented and upheld those norms.  This attack was of such a magnitude that it compelled Pelosi to respond—and could, combined with other factors, lead to even more seismic splits within the ruling class.

The three fears of Piglosi had not somehow evaporated. Not only were the reasons above compelling a response, Piglosi also faced losing the allegiance of those sections of the masses whom the Democrats are responsible for politically corralling and domesticating—there was the danger that as this came to light, if she did NOT act those masses might be led to act politically outside the control and “proper channels” of the system.

Where this will now go is up for grabs. But it is certain that Trump will hit back as hard as he can and will be compelled to use the impeachment process to further solidify the fascist movement inside and outside government. These fascists see this as a fight for their lives in which anything is acceptable. In case there was any doubt, Trump showed this on Thursday by invoking treason to characterize those who had leaked this information, and implying that those people who brought this to light should be subject to the penalties for that, including execution! His further invoking of the Civil War over the weekend, in a re-tweet from a Christian fascist minister, underscored how these fascist forces see the stakes and the lengths they could go to enforce their will.

The Democrats may try to walk a certain tightrope: using the impeachment to hem Trump in, to shore up the system’s “norms” of functioning (what have been the accepted rules of the game up to recently), and to keep control on the masses that they are responsible for controlling while trying not to further inflame the fascist mass base. Piglosi is already trying to limit this to the breach in national security and the tampering with the elections process by Trump, as opposed to the main thrust and basic sweep of the fascist juggernaut he rides. She will strive mightily to keep this strictly within the rules, which allows for the Republicans in the Senate to defeat impeachment, if they even allow it to come up in that chamber. She and the Democratic Party machinery with all its tentacles will very likely try to keep masses out of the streets and/or under very tight control if they do go into the streets.

They have not lost their “three fears”: they will still try to work this in a way that does NOT rouse the beast of Trump’s fascist base and that may make deals with Trump himself and/or other elements of the fascist camp. “Victory” in the Piglosi scenario could leave you with a President Pence, or a chastened Trumpf; or possibly a Democrat (Piglosi is in line for succession after Pence) who will also be prosecuting the mandates of empire, with an embittered fascism waiting the wings; and the masses still ground up by the system and, worse yet, with no sense of any larger future than shuttling between the two camps.

But there is a third force in this scenario that has not yet emerged: the masses aroused around an understanding that this FASCIST regime must GO, NOW!—and willing to act on that understanding. It is this force that could change the equation, that could turn this situation into a major defeat for fascism. The speech by Andy Zee in Los Angeles on September 28 gives a very good sense of the dimensions of that.

Further: depending on the work of revolutionaries within this movement, as well as other struggles, how people come to understand the source of the problem and its solution could have profound, and possibly liberating, effects on what right now seems at best a bleak future—if there is to be any future at all.

But before we get to that, it’s important to dig a little deeper into the second question: why is this happening?

Why Is It Happening?

We outlined above the proximate reasons for this crisis. But to understand the driving dynamics of what has led us to this point where we even have a blatant proud-to-be-ignorant fascist as president, you have to go another level down, into the deep and defining contradictions of this system and how they have been working themselves out over the past 50 years.

The United States stands atop a system of capitalism-imperialism. That is not just “rhetoric”; it has meaning for the lives of billions of people, all over the world. This is brought home by Bob Avakian in BAsics 1:4:

Not only did slavery play a major role in the historical development of the U.S., but the wealth and power of the U.S. rests today on a worldwide system of imperialist exploitation that ensnares hundreds of millions, and ultimately billions, of people in conditions hardly better than those of slaves. Now, if this seems like an extreme or extravagant claim, think about the tens of millions of children throughout the Third World who, from a very, very early age, are working nearly every day of the year—as the slaves on the southern plantations in the United States used to say, “from can’t see in the morning, till can’t see at night”—until they’ve been physically used up.... These are conditions very similar to outright slavery.... This includes overt sexual harassment of women, and many other degradations as well. 

All this is the foundation on which the imperialist system rests, with U.S. imperialism now sitting atop it all.     

This is not static, or without contradiction. On the contrary. These imperialists face challenges—from different forces within the countries they dominate, and from their rivals scrambling to replace them, or to get a bigger cut of the spoils. The attached chart shows the wars and aggression that have been waged by the rulers of this system since the end of World War 2—aggression that has taken the lives of nearly ten million people and that has torn apart the lives of many times that number (see the chart here). Again: nearly ten million. There are no “good guys” on top of this system—however they present themselves, they all must and do carry out mass murder to preserve this “way of life” and maintain the much-vaunted “American dream.”

But this system is in deep crisis, with economic, social, cultural and political dimensions. Again, from Bob Avakian’s filmed speech THE TRUMP/PENCE REGIME MUST GO! In The Name of Humanity, We REFUSE To Accept a Fascist America, A Better World IS Possible analyzing the roots of the regime and putting forward the way to drive it out:

The truth—another terrible truth that must be faced—is that, in the context of profound and acute contradictions that are asserting, or re-asserting, themselves in ways that are tearing at the very fabric and deepening cracks in the foundation of this country, at the same time as the American empire is facing serious challenges internationally, fascism is one possible resolution of this, on the terms of this system and its ruling class, even as this is a horror for humanity.

While the Constitution does establish the separation of church and state—and the Christian fascists are wrong, or simply lying, when they insist that the founding documents of this country established it as a “Christian nation”— the reality is that Christianity has all along been the unofficial state religion of this country, and the country’s identity, throughout its history, has been as a “white Christian nation,” grounded in male supremacy as well as white supremacy and driven by a “manifest destiny” to dominate not only the continent of North America but ultimately the world as a whole. All this has been brought into question, and has become the focus of intense struggle, going back to the 1960s and, in some important ways, back to the Civil War. And while developments internationally, including the demise of the Soviet Union, have given further impetus to the globalization of the capitalist world economy, this very heightened globalization has propelled changes that have sharpened contradictions within the U.S. as well as on the world level, particularly with an emerging capitalist China mounting a challenge to U.S. global economic dominance, at the same time as this heightened globalization, under conditions of western imperialist domination, has wreaked havoc in countries throughout the Third World, including the Middle East (and other places where Islam is the prevailing religion), adding fuel to a virulent Islamic fundamentalism that has declared war on the “decadent west” and on “infidels” and others oriented toward the west and facilitating its imperial domination.

In order to bring about any positive resolution to all this, even short of abolishing and moving beyond this whole system, it is necessary and crucial to break with the “normal routine” and the “normal workings” of the political process.

In short: the cause of what is going on today does not lie in the “corruption” of one man and the opportunism of the Republican Party. The fascism we face today draws on the deep and thick roots in this society of white supremacy, male supremacy and ignorant America-first jingoism. And it goes all the way down into most basic economic relations of capitalism-imperialism and the sharp, multi-dimensioned crisis the rulers of that system now face: a crisis for which no section has any answer in the interests of the masses.

Where Do the Interests of Humanity Lie?

The most fundamental interests of humanity lie in an actual revolution to overthrow this system, institute new political, economic and social relations and structures based on uprooting and abolishing exploitation and all forms of oppression, and move forward to emancipate the entire world. The fact that the normal workings of the system that now oppresses billions worldwide, combined with the political maneuverings of its “great leaders,” have brought us to a world on the brink of destruction and a society plunging headlong into a straight-out fascist form of rule, is more than reason enough to do away with this system. At this moment, a key concentrated expression of making that revolution is leading millions to drive this regime from power.

If this system were all that is possible—if all we could do was work within this to tamp down or moderate this or that horror, to get a supposedly more reasonable representative of the imperialists to preside over the plunder and slaughter—that would be one thing. But it is NOT all that is possible: there is the fact that there is a whole other way humanity could be living—one based on tearing up borders and bringing forward a common humanity rather than enforcing those borders in the most heartless ways; on overcoming the outmoded relations where one section of society socially dominates another; on breaking all of tradition’s chains. We really could set out on the road toward a society based on people freely working together to transform the world and themselves rather than forced to compete as atomized individuals.

Bob Avakian has brought forth a blueprint for the road to that world in the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America. In this Constitution, as BA has said, “a sweeping, and at the same time concrete, vision and plan for a radically different society and world is laid out, embodying a whole new dimension of freedom and whole new relations, among people and between people and the environment, beyond the narrow confines and the terrible consequences of the present system of exploitation and plunder.”

The bridge to that future is revolution, a revolution which the National Get Organized For An Actual Revolution Tour is urgently organizing. All this adds to the importance of revolutionaries being revolutionaries in this situation: that is to boldly put forward their principles, goals and views, to struggle where needed while working to forge unity against the common enemy.

Revolutionary communists participate in everything from the standpoint of hastening the revolution, while awaiting favorable changes in the overall situation. Here, the following from BA’s 2018 talk, Why We Need An Actual Revolution And How We Can Really Make Revolution is very important:

So… how do we go about hastening while awaiting? The means for doing this is concentrated in the formulation: “Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution.” Let’s start with the aim of all this—Revolution. In BAsics 3:1, I put it like this: “Let’s get down to basics: We need a revolution. Anything else, in the final analysis, is bullshit.” That is another simple and basic truth. We need to go to people—not just one or two people, not just a small number of people, but masses of people, reaching all over the country, in every part of society—straight up with revolution—instead of just letting “where they are at” set the terms, and trying to somehow “bring in” some idea about revolution within that limited framework. As BAsics 3:1 goes on to say: We do need to unite with people in all sorts of struggles short of revolution; but it is frankly ridiculous to think that something short of revolution could solve all the monumental problems and monstrous outrages that people face under this system. On the basis of going to people straight up with revolution, then, coming from that place, we need to unite with people in fighting injustice and oppression, and struggle to win more and more people to see the need and the possibility for revolution, and to get with this.

At the same time, there is an urgent need for revolutionaries to join with people very broadly to drive out this regime. To again return to Why We Need An Actual Revolution And How We Can Really Make Revolution, in a passage that the Revolution Clubs and the National Tour should be really working with applying in this whole coming period:

To come back to the most fundamental point: “All this is aiming for something very definite—a revolutionary situation.” What we are doing now is making revolution—it is all part of, and must be consciously and systematically carried out as, an overall strategic plan and approach to getting to the point where millions can be brought forward to wage the all-out fight to overthrow this system, with a real chance of winning.

A great immediate challenge that bears heavily on the prospects for revolution is what is represented by the Trump/Pence regime. In another talk (THE TRUMP/PENCE REGIME MUST GO! In The Name of Humanity We REFUSE To Accept a Fascist America, A Better World IS Possible) I have spoken to how this is in fact a fascist regime; the basis on which it has risen to power in this country; how, so long as it remains in power, this regime will commit ever greater atrocities and poses a very real threat to the future and very existence of humanity through its assaults on the environment and its arsenals of nuclear annihilation; and why, in the name of humanity, it is necessary, and how it is possible, to force the removal of this regime through a massive, nonviolent but sustained mobilization of people demanding that this regime must go! Here, I am going to speak to the relation between this and the fundamental goal of revolution.

If this regime is able to further consolidate its power and more fully implement its horrific agenda, the prospects for revolution could then be greatly set back and the conscious revolutionary forces decimated—or completely destroyed—at least for a time. On the other hand, if a mass movement is built to drive out this regime, and if the revolutionaries work to build this movement from the perspective of how it relates to the revolution that is needed as the fundamental solution, then the situation in society (and the world) will become much more favorable for the fight against injustice and oppression, and crucial advances can be made toward the overthrow of the whole system. To a significant degree now, the conflict between the sections of society upholding this fascism and those opposing it, from various different perspectives, is shaping the terrain on which the struggle for revolution must be carried out; this conflict is likely to intensify, and could erupt further in violent confrontation, and in any case it would be a significant factor in the context of an all-out struggle between revolution and counter-revolution.

The relation between the struggle against this fascist regime and building the revolution is not a “straight road” or a “one-way street”:  It must not be approached, by those who understand the need for revolution, as if “first we must build a mass movement to drive out this regime, and then we can turn our attention to working directly for revolution.” It is crucial to unite and mobilize people, from different perspectives, very broadly, around the demand that this regime must go, but it will be much more difficult to do this on the scale and with the determination that is required to meet this objective if there are not, at the same time, greater and greater numbers of people who have been brought forward around the understanding that it is necessary to put an end not only to this regime but to the system out of whose deep and defining contradictions this regime has arisen, a system which by its very nature has imposed, and will continue to impose, horrific and completely unnecessary suffering on the masses of humanity, until this system itself is abolished. And the more that people are brought forward to be consciously, actively working for revolution, the growing strength and “moral authority” of this revolutionary force will in turn strengthen the resolve of growing numbers of people to drive out this fascist regime now in power, even as many will not be (and some will perhaps never be) won to revolution. So, both to meet the immediate challenge of creating a political situation in which this regime will be removed from power—and in which the political initiative has been seized to a great degree by those who are determined to turn back the assault on humanity that is being carried out by this regime and to strive for a better world, however they understand that—and to advance toward the fundamental goal of revolution, it is vitally important that all those who have come to understand the need for revolution actively contribute to building the movement to drive out this regime, and do so from the perspective and in the overall framework of building for revolution.

The days and weeks ahead could be, and must be, momentous. To drive out the regime would be a victory on a huge scale; to go further and advance the struggle to emancipate all of humanity in the course of that would be an even larger one. We must do both

THE SAME SHIT

The united states is a racist colonialist imperialist beast that was founded on slavery and genocide, and there hasn't been a country in the history of the world with a more bloody track record of invasions and genocide than this monster, and it continues today, including the killing of Black youth within their own cities . What the fuck do you think should be done ?

White tears, White lies and Black pain in trial of officer who killed Black man in his own home

BY JIHAD HASSAN MUHAMMAD, CONTRIBUTING WRITER | LAST UPDATED: OCT 2, 2019 - 9:28:49 PM

FacebookTwitterMore

What's your opinion on this article?

Former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger leaves the courtroom during a break in morning proceedings in her murder trial, Sept. 24, in Dallas. Guyger is accused of shooting her unarmed Black neighbor in his Dallas apartment.

DALLAS—The murder trial of a White former police officer, Amber Guyger, caught the spotlight a little over a year after her bizarre killing of unarmed Black man, Bothem Shem Jean, in his own home. At Final Call press time, both the defense and prosecution had rested their cases and jurors were asked to render a judgement on whether Ms. Guyger is guilty of murder or a lesser crime. She could also be found not guilty.

She insists she mistook his apartment for her own. The onetime Dallas police officer had seemed unemotional, even apathetic during the trial. But defense attorneys said she was sorrowful for killing in self-defense and in her testimony she cried.

Prosecutors said there was no basis for self defense since Ms. Guyger’s life was never in danger.

She entered Mr. Jean’s apartment while he was watching television and eating ice cream the night of September 6, 2018.

Will the family of Mr. Jean receive justice, or will another onetime White law enforcement officer live free and unpunished after killing an unarmed and innocent Black person?

Judge Tammy Kemp, the Black woman who presides over the trial, has been firm in saying she wants the jury to decide the case free of influence caused by electronic devices, nodding of heads or gestures in her courtroom. The sequestered jury consists of two Whites, one Asian, four Latinos, and five Blacks. Four jurors are men, and eight are women. There are also four alternates.

The week was been an emotional one for the Jean family, who came from the island of St. Lucia for the trial. They began in Dallas on Sept. 22 by attending services at Cedar Crest Church of Christ where Mr. Jean could once be found singing in the choir and mentoring young people. His grandmother Gloria told those present it was important to not let her son become demonized as have other Black men who died at the hands of police.

“He was a good boy, a very loving child,” lamented his grandmother.

Jurors heard from Mr. Jean’s sister who spoke of how she still can’t believe he is gone. She shared the sense of great loss her family feels because of his death.

Perhaps the most emotional distress experienced by the family was a video showing emergency professionals trying with much vigor to save Mr. Jean, who was still breathing when they arrived. Some Jean family members sobbed leaving the courtroom as the video played.

Cheryl Smith, a longtime National Association of Black Journalists board member, multiplatform journalist and newspaper owner of the Texas Metro News, Garland Journal and I Messenger Media online, was in the courtroom.

“First, two officers and then paramedics worked diligently on Mr. Jean. They encouraged him as they performed CPR. You could hear the passion in their voice as they said, ‘come on chief, come on big man,’ while they tried to save his life. It was like they were praying for him to breathe,” Ms. Smith said.

Several veteran Dallas police personnel told The Final Call that Ms. Guyger’s protocol as a police officer required that she wait and call for back up if she perceived someone was in her apartment committing burglary. She should not have entered the dwelling by herself to take on any possible intruder, they said. Additionally, she should have been found administering CPR to try to prevent a fatality until paramedics arrived.

According to the defense, she did administer CPR. Video captures her pacing back and forth in the hall of the Southside Flats apartments on the phone minutes after shooting Mr. Jean. Immediately after shooting him, phone records show Ms. Guyger texted her patrol partner, Sr. Corporal Martin Rivera, saying, “I f----d up!” Prosecutors wondered how sorrowful she could be without even an attempt to save the life of Bothem Shem Jean.

Guyger defense attorneys described her as being on mental auto-pilot due to a grueling schedule that left her too tired to know she was at the wrong apartment, on the wrong floor with a red doormat. Text messages the defense wanted concealed from the jury, but were allowed by Judge Kemp, showed something else. It was revealed that Ms. Guyger, who was fired by the department after the shooting, and partner Rivera, a married man, were involved in a sexual relationship. Ms. Guyger wanted to see Sr. Corporal Rivera later that night, texting him about such desires shortly before arriving at Mr. Jean’s apartment.

The defense paints the picture of Mr. Guyger fearing for her life as she entered the apartment belonging to Mr. Jean. They contend she mistook him for an armed burglar and fired her weapon.

“Apparently, they were having some issues with the door, it’s supposed to make a roaring sound to let you know, but a red light came on the door with no sound,” said Ms. Smith. “They are saying that the door was not closed. She came in and the defense would have you to believe that some sort of struggle took place. But the trajectory of the bullet shows that her at 5’3 and him at 6’1 or so that the bullet was shot down. He could have conceivably been sitting down eating that bowl of ice cream as shown in the evidence when he was shot,” said Ms. Smith. Both the defense and prosecutors agreed there was no prior relationship between the two.

Ms. Guyger testified that she decided to be assigned in the Southeast section of Dallas, which is predominantly a Black community, because that’s where she would get the most training as a police officer because of high crime.

The defense attorney made a point to ask her about the neighborhood surrounding the Southside Flats, which she said was riddled with homeless people who jumped gates to sleep on patios and she did not fully feel safe when she walked her dog.

Brandt Jean, center, the brother of Botham Jean arrives with family members for the murder trial of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger in Dallas, Sept. 24, 2019. Guyger is on trial for shooting and killing Botham Jean, her unarmed neighbor, in the Dallas apartment building they both lived in.

“I was scared that someone was in my apartment and was going to kill me,” she said through tears. “This is not about hate, I was scared.”

In her testimony Ms. Guyger stated how the Dallas Police Department drilled her during training to always see a suspect’s hands, calling out, “Let me see your hands!” Prosecutors said Ms. Guyger gave no such commands to Mr. Jean.

When prosecutors asked Ms. Guyger did she feel sympathy for Mr. Jean the night she killed him, the sympathy displayed during her testimony? Her response was yes. Moments later they showed her not crying as Mr. Jean’s dead body passed her as she sat in her sergeant’s squad car. She was seen on video cam appearing unemotional, looking at her phone.

During cross-examination, the prosecution told the jury Ms. Guyger never said Mr. Jean put her in fear, was armed and coming at her to her fellow officers or a 911 dispatcher.

Ms. Guyger said she performed basic life support. When asked she said, “I performed a little CPR.” There was no blood on her uniform to indicate she did. Prosecutors argued several times that Ms. Guyger put her needs and wants over a dying Mr. Jean—texting and not giving the dying man her undivided attention and walking away more than twice instead of administering life support while her first aid bag was inches away.

During her testimony it was also revealed that she did not rely on her training. Ms. Guyger admitted she had not taken a position of cover and concealment or dispatch a radio call for assistance with police help two minutes away. Her general orders were left unattended and void while Mr. Jean lay dying.

Ms. Guyger appeared to be caught in several lies during cross examination. She said she was tired yet was planning to go back to the gym. She said her morals stopped her from continuing a sexual relationship with her married partner yet was sexting for a meeting with her lover the night of Mr. Jean’s killing. Even her supposed fear of the surrounding community was found untrue. Prosecutors showed a text message she sent a fellow officer about how much she loved her new apartment and neighborhood.

“The intent to kill, which is one of the elements of murder, was satisfied by Amber Guyger in her shooting of Jean. She did not have to kill him, she could have called for backup, but instead she decided to kill him,” said Atty. Jeryl Christmas, who has dealt with police shooting cases and is based in St. Louis. Atty. Christmas said the self-defense argument should not stand. Mr. Christmas along with his colleague, Atty. Pamela Muhammad of Houston, Texas, helped residents of Ferguson fight charges in the aftermath of protests following the 2014 killing of Mike Brown Jr.

“Guyger’s defense is so ridiculous. It goes back to the old White supremacist theory that Black people don’t have rights that they are bound to even respect. The notion that this could even be presented by Guyger is totally absurd,” declared Atty. Muhammad. “Her theory is based on the idea that White people are entitled to more protection than Black people.”

“The fact that she can even say that she did not have the requisite intent to kill Bothem just because she shot, because she had all these things going in her head, this poor innocent and defenseless White female, etc. That defense is purely illogical for a trained police officer and full of bias that we see all the time,” said Atty. Muhammad. Atty. Christmas agreed.

Gwen L. Hodrick, licensed professional counselor and bestselling author, said a mental state tied to White supremacy in America is live, well, and present in the Amber Guyger case. “The history of this country has Africans being brought here to work as slaves, and in doing so being painted as animals, and as a threat who needed to be handled and shackled in order to keep us subservient to them. That still permeates with us today,” the mental health professional said.

“ ‘I have to put them in their place. If I feel like they are threatening me in any way, I have the right to do whatever I want, and this country is based off of rights,’ ” she argued is the immediate state of a Caucasian mind when dealing with Black people.

Alshaheed Muhammad, student minister of the Nation of Islam mosque in Dallas, added, “It’s the old European paradigm. In slavery the White women would accuse the Black man of raping her while she was engaging in something unethical or unChristian like, yet the White dominant male justice structure would do whatever they wanted to the Black man and call it justice. Amber Gugyer’s defense theory is no different.”

The trial drew quickly to a close, going to the jury Sept. 30 with the judge holding a brief session Sept. 28.

Ms. Smith was not optimistic with just five Blacks on the 12-person jury. “I have seen so many times when we think we are going to get justice because they are people that look like you on the panel. That is not necessarily so,” she said. “I don’t have any hope, I want people to look at the facts in front of them and act accordingly. How can someone not see the culpability of Amber Guyger?” she asked.

No matter the trial outcome, the Nation of Islam in Dallas is prepared to help keep Black people move wisely, said Minister Muhammad. “If she walks, we don’t want to see our people gunned down in the streets if there is protest. We help to make sure our people are safe and direct our minds to what the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is organizing us to do, which to build our own community and separate from those who will not give us justice,” he said.

FUCKING IMPERIALIST GANGSTERS

The following article does not prove in any way that kkkanada is a u.s. colony, but rather more like a fellow mafia colleague. These motherfuckers only know how to steal from poorer nations .

Seizure of Iranian property to pay Americans another example of Canadian hypocrisy

While France, Germany, Russia and China seek detente, Canada is increasingly part of the US-Saudi Arabia-Israeli axis stoking conflict with Iran.

Canada recently seized and sold $30 million worth of Iranian properties in Ottawa and Toronto to compensate individuals in the US who had family members killed in a 2002 Hamas bombing in Israel and others who were held hostage by Hezbollah in 1986 and 1991. The Supreme Court of Canada and federal government sanctioned the seizure under the 2012 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which lifts immunity for countries labeled “state sponsors of terrorism” to allow individuals to claim their non-diplomatic assets.

While not much discussed by Canadian media or politicians, this is a substantial development. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyyed Abbas Mousavi called the seizure “illegal” and in “direct contradiction with international law” while a spokesperson for Iran’s Guardian Council, Abbasali Kadkhodaei, accused Canada of “economic terrorism”. A senior member of Iran’s parliament said the country’s military should confiscate Canadian shipments crossing the Strait of Hormuz.

In a right side up world, the Iranian asset sale would lead to various more legitimate seizures. Relatives of the Lebanese Canadian el-Akhras family Israel wiped out, including four children aged 1 to 8, in 2006 are certainly at least as worthy of Canadian government-backed compensation. Ditto for Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener, a Canadian soldier part of a UN mission, killed by an Israeli fighter jet in Lebanon in 2006. Or Palestinian Canadian Ismail Zayid, who was driven from a West Bank village demolished to make way for the Jewish National Fund’s Canada Park.

In Haiti there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of individuals whose family members were killed at peaceful protests by a police force paid, trained and politically supported by Canada after US, French and Canadian troops overthrew the country’s elected president in 2004. Ten months after the coup I met a young man in Port-au-Prince who fled the country after armed thugs searching for him came to his house and killed his aunt. Before the coup Jeremy had been a journalist with the state television, which was identified with the ousted government. Should US or Canadian assets be seized to compensate him?

There are hundreds of Canadians and countless individuals elsewhere who have been victimized by Israeli, Canadian and US-backed terror more deserving of compensation than the Americans paid with Iranian assets for what Hamas and Hezbollah purportedly did decades ago. Should Israeli, US and Canadian government assets be seized to pay them?

It’s insightful to look at the double standard — approved by the Supreme Court — from another angle. In 2012 that court refused to hear a case against Anvil Mining for its direct role in Congolese troops killing 100, mostly unarmed civilians, near its Dikulushi mine in Katanga in October 2004. After a half-dozen members of the little-known Mouvement Revolutionnaire pour la Liberation du Katanga occupied the Canada-Australian company’s Kilwa concession, Anvil provided the trucks used to transport Congolese soldiers to the area and to dump the corpses of their victims into mass graves. The company also published a press release applauding the Congolese military’s dastardly deed. Though the company was managed from Montréal and its main shareholders were Vancouver’s First Quantum and the Canadian Pension Plan, the Québec Court of Appeal and Supreme Court concluded the survivors had to pursue remedies in either the Congo or Australia.

The Canadian media has devoted little attention to the seizure of Iranian assets. But, Forbes, Sputnik, Xinhua and a host of Iranian media have covered the story. At least three Iranian newspapers put it on their frontpage.

The Trudeau government’s failure to speak against the asset seizure, delist Iran as a “state sponsor of terror” or repeal Stephen Harper’s Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act puts further lie to its commitment to a “rules based international order”. It is also another broken promise. Before the 2015 election Justin Trudeau told the CBC, “I would hope that Canada would be able to reopen its mission [in Tehran]. I’m fairly certain that there are ways to re-engage [Iran].”

But, don’t expect NDP foreign affairs critic Guy Caron or the media to ask why Canada hasn’t re-established relations with the nation of 80 million. By breaking his promise to restart diplomatic relations with Iran Trudeau has empowered those hurtling us towards a major conflict

THE GOOD SHIT

This past weekend I had the good fortune to go to two shows in a row, both times to see the local bands, despite there being touring bands with them. I will only speak of the bands I was into.
The first night ( Friday )
 saw fresh locals Knife Manual in an opening slot, and they fucking slayed the place . Each time I see them they get better , and their under 20 minute sets leave you wanting more, but in a good way . Short , sharp, to the fucking point , they are currently my favourite new local band . Go see them , idiots !

Knife Manual .

The following night saw Shallow End headline a packed house at Logan's . I couldn't believe the turnout, and yet I hardly knew anyone there. Sure, the music was more metallic hardcore, but still , I didn't think there were two completely different scenes in a town this size . Shallow End were by far the best band of the night , with their heavy riffing and Dave being an amazing  frontman . Get their new cassette. You will fucking love it.



Shallow End.

I think it's tremendous that we live in a place where you have so many great bands of so many different styles right within your own area code, although 604 is great also .
Support the local shit. It's all there if you want it.

THE NEXT WAR

The amerikkkans are always looking for their next war, despite the fact that they are losing wherever they set foot, even with the mass carnage they inflict , terrorizing populations all over the globe . They are currently losing to the taliban in Afghanistan, even though it was the u.s. who put them into power in 1996 through their ally Pakistan. They are also losing in Iraq, and will surely lose when they start their next war, this time with Iran.

Could failed U.S. policy lead to war with Iran?

BY BRIAN E. MUHAMMAD STAFF WRITER @GLOBALPEEKS | LAST UPDATED: SEP 24, 2019 - 12:23:55 AM

FacebookTwitterMore

What's your opinion on this article?

United States antagonism against the Islamic Republic of Iran escalated to dangerous heights in the aftermath of drone and missile attacks on oil refineries in the Abqaiq and Khurais areas of Saudi Arabia. The two facilities are the core of the Saudi oil industry.

U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo

The mid-September attacks severely impacted crude oil and natural gas production and intensified geopolitical friction in the Middle East. Houthi rebels fighting a U.S.-supported and Saudi-led coalition in neighboring Yemen claimed responsibility. The U.S. rejected the claim and charged Iran, a mutual U.S.-Saudi foe, was responsible for the attack. Defense Dept. officials said additional U.S. military personnel and weapons were headed to Saudi Arabia to protect the Kingdom and bolster its security. Britain, France and Germany joined the United States Sept. 23 in blaming Iran for attacks on key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, according to the Associated Press. Their remarks came as world leaders were gathering for the United Nations General Assembly in New York. “The leaders of the U.K., France and Germany—who remain parties to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal—said in a statement that ‘there is no other plausible explanation’ than that ‘Iran bears responsibility for this attack,’ ” said the Associated Press.

“British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the U.K. would consider taking part in a U.S.-led military effort to bolster Saudi Arabia’s defenses,” according to the wire service. “French President Emmanuel Macron said at a news conference at the U.N. that he planned to meet separately with both Trump and Rouhani over the next day and would work to foster ‘the conditions for discussion’ and not escalation. Macron called the Sept. 14 strikes ‘a game-changer, clearly’ but reiterated France’s willingness to mediate.”

“This was an Iranian attack,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on a Sept. 18 flight to Jeddah. “It’s not the case that you can subcontract out the devastation of five percent of the world’s global energy supply and think that you can absolve yourself of responsibilities,” he said. He waved off Houthis taking responsibility as a “fraudulent claim.” Even if true, Mr. Pompeo argued, “it doesn’t change the fingerprints of the ayatollah” in putting at risk the global energy supply. He was referring to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  

As U.S. officials pushed the “blame Iran” narrative and increased fears of an all-out war, Iran denied involvement in the attacks. Iran also warned Washington and Riyadh that any acts of military aggression would be met with military force.

President Trump pulled back from early language that seemed to suggest a military response and announced additional sanctions, including targeting Iranian banking. Russia said it would ignore the banking sanctions. When the attack happened, China and Russia said U.S. accusations against Iran should not be hastily believed. Pentagon officials also announced Sept. 20 America is deploying more troops to the Middle East in response to the crisis. Specific numbers were not given, and the deployment was requested by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff General Joseph Dunford remarked that hundreds of troops, “not thousands,” would be deployed. There are currently 70,000 U.S. service members stationed in the region.

“The president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defense,” said Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told CNN it’s “all-out war” if the U.S. and Saudi Arabia opt for a military solution. He questioned why the Americans and Saudis want to “make this up” and blame Iran after the Houthi claim of responsibility. The charges against Iran are based on “lies” and “deception,” charged Mr. Zarif. He called the accusations agitation for war and reiterated Iran’s resolve to defend itself. 

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan has repeatedly warned against U.S. military action against Iran, saying it would have devastating consequences for America and could usher in a wider global war described in scripture as the war of Armageddon. He has repeatedly urged the Iranians and the Saudis to find a way to resolve their differences to avoid war and more destruction in the Middle East. 

During a major address from the Nation of Islam’s flagship Mosque Maryam in July, Min. Farrakhan explained America is ready to go to war with Iran and wants to use Black bodies “to achieve their wicked aims.”

Mr. Trump has walked away from an agreement former President Barack Obama made with Iran, an agreement upheld by powerful permanent members on the UN Security Council. Mr. Trump also didn’t like that the agreement called for the return of some of Iran’s billions of dollars in U.S. banks, the Minister said.

Going to war would put America into much more debt than it’s currently in and Congress would have to go to the Federal Reserve Bank to print more money, he noted.

“America is provoking Iran, but the world is not afraid of America,” the Minister warned, “but our president wants the world to fear him.”

Mr. Trump has warned that if Iran enriches its uranium to a level that could produce a nuclear bomb, then Israel will attack and the U.S. will support Israel, Min. Farrakhan continued. “When you are guilty of evil and you see that (Iran) has the technology to get a bomb, your fear of them having it makes you do things. Mr. President, it would not be a wise move for you,” the Minister warned.

“The first thing to realize is that the reason that we are here is largely because of failed U.S. policy on Iran,” said Mana Mostatabi, communications director for the National Iranian American Council in a telephone interview with The Final Call.

“This is not happening in a vacuum. This did not start in the last couple of weeks,” Ms. Mostatabi continued. “As soon as the U.S. decided to ditch their nuclear deal … imposing their maximum pressure campaign, this is when everything was catalyzed.” 

She described Iran and America as locked in an unending “tit for tat.” She pointed out America’s swiftness to conclude—without definitive proof—Iran bombed Saudi oil facilities. The Saudis and other Gulf nations were slightly more cautious. While saying the weapons, described as cruise missiles and drones, were Iranian, the Saudis had not directly stated they were launched from Iran.  

“When it comes to figuring out what parties are to blame … we need to really take what the U.S. is saying with a grain of salt,” said Ms. Mostatabi. “This administration, in particular, has a history of distorting and manipulating intelligence on Iran,” she said.

Mr. Trump initially tweeted America was “locked and loaded,” awaiting final verification Iran attacked the Saudi oil facilities. Mr. Trump is also on record saying he doesn’t want war. Hawks in his administration have sent contradictory messages observers say reflect internal divisions and the president’s own ambivalence.

“The Trump administration and the U.S. government in general are suffering from an extreme paradox,” said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the anti-war A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition. “They want to overthrow the independent government in Iran, and they are threatening military action ... hoping that the military threats and the intense economic sanctions would create a division within Iran such that they would have an opportunity to carry out regime change.”

“This administration’s lack of a strategy has led to escalation and confusion in the Middle East,” said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in a statement. 

“While we don’t know who is responsible for the attacks ... without a clear strategy to deescalate tensions with Iran, the situation will only get worse,” he warned. 

The Pentagon and United Nations have experts in Saudi Arabia to determine the location from which the attacks were launched. 

Houthi rebels said they bombed the oil refineries in retaliation for Saudi atrocities committed in the war against Yemen. 

While some argue Iran bears guilt because of their support for the Houthis, Ms. Mostatabi dismissed such reasoning as a “false equivalency.” “There’s a lot of going back and forth about Iranians giving arms to the Houthis,” she said. “We seem to forget that the U.S. is also providing the Saudis arms in the same conflict.”

And, she said, regardless of anti-Iran chest bumping, “any strikes without congressional authorization would be illegal.” 

Saudi Arabia and America are not “treaty allies”’ with obligations to engage in war for one another, she noted. 

To deescalate hostilities a “real third party” independent investigation is required, argued Ms. Mostatabi. “Neither the U.S. nor the Saudis have the credibility needed to conduct a conclusive investigation,” she said.

In a Sept. 18 report before journalists, Colonel Turki al-Malka, spokesman for the Saudi Defense Ministry, dismissed claims the attacks originated from Yemen, saying it was a false narrative designed to cover Iranian complicity. 

Although the Saudi defense spokesman admitted investigations were ongoing to determine the launch point for the attacks, he insisted the strikes were “unquestionably sponsored by Iran.” 

Relying on photos, graphics and physical debris from the 25 drones and cruise missiles collected from the targeted sites, the Saudi Defense Ministry presented what they said was evidence of Iranian culpability. Mr. Al-Malka said 18 drones hit the Abqaiq facility, four penetrated the Khurais facility and three fell short. 

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo stuck to an anti-Iranian hardline during meetings with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other government officials in Jeddah. Mr. Pompeo labeled the attacks an “act of war” by Iran. “This is an attack of a scale we’ve just not seen before,” Mr. Pompeo told reporters on his flight to Jeddah. “The Saudis were the nation that were attacked. It was on their soil,” he said. “It was an act of war against them directly.” 

Mr. Pompeo said flight patterns suggested the attacks didn’t come from the south, in the direction of Yemen, and said American intelligence doubts the Houthis possessed the weapons used. 

 Mr. Pompeo also admitted the U.S. hasn’t seen evidence of the attack being launched from Iraq or possibly over Kuwait as some speculated. 

Concerned about future attacks, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates signed on to a military alliance dubbed the International Maritime Security Construct led by the U.S. It reportedly includes Israel and is designed to increase security in gulf waters. 

The state-run WAM news agency announced the UAE’s decision. Salem Mohammed Al Zaabi, director of the International Security Cooperation Department, said UAE interest is in protecting maritime navigation, global trade, and the “flow of energy supplies” to global markets. The alliance would protect member ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, Bab Al Mandab, the Sea of Oman and the Arabian Gulf, major oil transportation routes.

Australia, Bahrain and the United Kingdom are also part of the alliance but Iraq declined to join, warning U.S. formation of a military force to allegedly protect strategic waters would only escalate regional tensions.

FacebookTwitterMore

THE ANSWER IS CLEAR

There has been an ongoing  debate as to whether kkkanada is a colony or an imperialist power in it's own right. This next article should dispel any notions of kkkanada being a "colony ".

Is Canada a colony or imperialist power?

It seems strange to even ask this question, but some who call themselves socialists do, so it is good to revisit the it every so often. Is Canada best described as a colony or imperialist power?

Recent issues of the Economist and Northern Miner highlight the weakness of the dominant “staples trap” political economy perspective. Regardless of its popularity in left nationalist intellectual circles, Canada is not a victim of international capitalism. Instead it has long had a privileged place in an extremely hierarchical global economy.

In “How a Canadian firm has taken on Wall Street’s private-equity titans” The Economist reported that Brookfield Asset Management is as big as famed Wall Street competitors Carlyle and Blackstone. The Toronto-based company has “over $385 billion in assets under management” and owns businesses in “more than 30 countries around the world.”

Brookfield has been the quintessential rebuttal to left nationalism for decades. Begun in 1899, Brookfield’s predecessor (otherwise known as Brazilian Traction, Brascan or the Light) employed almost 50,000 Brazilians at its high point in the 1940s. Trolleys and electricity production were the company’s backbone, but it also owned a sardine cannery, fishing boats, a tin mine, a brewery, banks as well as real estate. Possibly the biggest firm in Latin America by the end of the 1950s, Brascan was commonly known as the “the Canadian octopus” since its tentacles reached into so many areas of Brazil’s economy. Between 1918 and 1952 more than $200 million ($2.5 billion today) was taken out of this ‘underdeveloped’ country and sent to Canada.

As Brascan sucked cash from Brazil, the company also squeezed local competitors. “The Monopoly created by the Light Company inhibited Brazilian initiatives”, notes Rosana Barbosa in Brazil and Canada: Economic, Political, and Migratory Ties, 1820s to 1970s. “[It] slowly absorbed the local competition.”

Putting the squeeze on local businesses went hand and hand with poor labour practices. In a confidential September 1923 letter between Brascan’s Rio and Toronto offices, company officials admitted they paid their workers poorly even by Brazilian standards. The letter further noted that “our secret agents have just informed us that [some] of our men are taking part in meetings at which an early strike is advocated and we are all becoming somewhat concerned over the situation.”

Brascan was well connected in Ottawa. The initial group of investors included Senator George Albertus, Canadian vice consul for Argentina Frederic Nicholls and Sir Henry Pellatt, who financed the 98-room Casa Loma as his private residence in Toronto. The (close) nephew of former Prime Minister Robert Borden later became Brazilian Traction president and Liberal ministers Robert Winters and Mitchell Sharp held top positions in the company.

Brascan’s political clout helped the company get public support. Brascan was the first firm to receive World Bank financing in Latin America. In 1949 it was given $75 million and received a total of $120 million ($1 billion today) from the World Bank through 1959.

Brascan had influence with pro-business politicians and the company actively supported Brazil’s right wing. Like its earlier spying on union activists the company spied on politicians as well. In 1957 the Canadian ambassador to Brazil stated: “During a recent conversation, a senior executive of the Light told me that his office had been keeping track of the number of Brazilian politicians who’ve been officially invited to visit the USSR and that during the last 18 months the list of visitors had grown to some 300.”

Spying was part of Brascan’s role in beating back rising economic nationalism in the late 1950s and early ’60s. Brascan officials participated in the moves and operations that led to the 1964 coup against social democratic President João Goulart, whose government made it more difficult for companies to export profits. The post-coup military dictatorship was good for business. Between 1965 and 1974 Brascan drained Brazil of $342 million ($2 billion today).

Today Brascan’s successor is among the largest private equity and property management firms in the world. Would one expect to find such an internationally powerful corporation in a colony?

If you’re still not convinced by the Economist story about Brookfield that Canada is better described as an imperialist power, the September 2 Northern Miner highlights Canadian dominance over another major rapaciously imperialist industry.

On the front page of the Toronto-based paper was a story on a Canadian company extracting resources in Chile and another focused on a firm operating in Papa New Guinea as well as an ad for a mineral conference in Chile. There were articles about a Canadian firm in Armenia and stories about Greenland and one titled “Security measures critical amid heightened risk in West Africa.” The “leading authority on the mining industry in Canada” published two stories about Canadian companies extracting resources in Nevada and one about a firm in Idaho. The biweekly paper had a six-page supplement on mining in Mexico, which included 300-word briefs on nine TSX listed firms operating there. The supplement included three longer articles on specific companies and a story headlined “President of Mexico says ‘no new mining concessions’”. The September 2–15 issue of the Northern Miner had a single story dealing with mining in Canada.

Last week the head of Franco-Nevada Pierre Lassonde complained that Canada was losing its major mining head offices, a position some left nationalists would sympathize with. But, with only 0.5% of the world’s population Canada is home to half of all mining companies. Given that reality, complaining about the “hollowing out” of Canadian mining is like foreign visitors complaining there are not enough gourmet restaurants in Haiti.

Left nationalists think Canada is “a ‘rich dependency’, skewed in its industrial development by a weak manufacturing base and massive staples exports to the US market.” As such, explains Greg Albo, left nationalists generally believe it’s necessary to develop “an industrial strategy backed by an alliance between national capitalists and Canadian workers” rather than simply promote socialist measures to democratize the economy.

Looking at the world through a left nationalist lens generally leads individuals to ignore, or downplay, the destruction wrought by Canadian corporations abroad and Canada’s power on the international stage. While there’s a role for nationalist economic policies in constraining the power of capital, improving working conditions and enabling environmental transformation, nationalist ideology is dangerous in powerful, imperialist, states. It seems to blind people to the imperialist forest as they focus on the clear-cut colonial trees.