Friday, April 07, 2017

YEMEN IT’S STILL GOING ON?


THE ABSURD TIMES




YEMEN IT'S STILL GOING ON?



The recent attack on Syria by the Donald, designed to sidetrack a U.N. investigation into the attack as a similar investigation into the death of 200 civilians in Mosul did not turn out as we wanted, has diverted attention to that issue.  Before the strike, Hillary, speaking before a women's group complaining about how misogyny played a role in her defeat put on a horrific display of post menopausal penis envy in ranting about the need to bomb Syria and get tough with Russia.  Immediately thereafter, Trump sent 59 missiles into Syria.



However, above we have an illustration of our actions in Yemen carried out by Saudi Arabia.  Right or wrong, true or false play no role here and never have.  At one point Obama held Yemen up to be his "model" for dealing with terrorism. 



Today, the reason the war will continue, despite the starvation of "beautiful little itty bitty babies" (Trump's words on Syria) the war will continue.  The only reason is that Saudi Arabia pays a great deal of money to war munitions and equipment manufacturers in the United States.  The was is buried in our media and gets little or no attention, so here is an excellent interview with perhaps the most informed and objective source on the subject:





The U.S. is also rapidly expanding military operations in Yemen. The U.S. has reportedly launched more than 49 strikes across the country this month—according to The New York Times, that's more strikes than the U.S. has ever carried out in a single year in Yemen. While the U.S. airstrikes have been targeting suspected al-Qaeda operations in Yemen, The Wall Street Journal is reporting the U.S. is now offering even more logistical and intelligence support for the Saudi-led war against Yemen's Houthi rebels, who are accused of being linked to Iran. More than 10,000 people have been killed since the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen began two years ago this month. Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting today that the Trump administration has approved the resumption of sales of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia. President Obama froze some of these weapons sales last year due to concern about civilian casualties in Saudi Arabia's expanding war in Yemen. We speak to Iona Craig, a journalist who was based in Sana'a from 2010 to 2015 as the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London.



TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to look at Yemen, where the U.S. is also rapidly expanding military operations. The U.S. has reportedly launched more than 49 strikes across the country this month—according to The New York Times, that's more strikes than the U.S. has ever carried out in a single year in Yemen. While the U.S. airstrikes have been targeting suspected al-Qaeda operations in Yemen, The Wall Street Journal is reporting the U.S. is now offering even more logistical and intelligence support for the Saudi-led war against Yemen's Houthi rebels, who are accused of being linked to Iran. More than 10,000 people have been killed since the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen began two years ago this month. Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting today that the Trump administration has approved the resumption of sales of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia. President Obama froze some of these weapons sales last year due to concern about civilian casualties in Saudi Arabia's expanding war in Yemen.

AMY GOODMAN: This all comes as the United Nations is warning Yemen is on the brink of famine. This is U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Stephen O'Brien.


STEPHEN O'BRIEN: Well, it's not just the number of people who are food insecure, which represents about 14 million out of the 26 million or so Yemenis, which is an enormous number for any nation to have to bear; it's the fact that we have seen an increase in severe acute malnourishment, particularly in young children and in lactating mothers. We have seen a very severe deterioration in the number of patients needing dialysis services, access to oxygen, and where we need to see more antibiotics being brought in and medical facilities made available. These are seriously deteriorating.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the situation in Yemen, we go to London to speak with Iona Craig, a journalist who was based in Sana'a from 2010 to '15 as the Yemen correspondent for The Times of London. She was in Yemen again last month, where she reported on January's Navy SEAL raid that left 25 civilians and one U.S. Navy SEAL dead.

Iona, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about the situation on the ground in Yemen right now.

IONA CRAIG: Well, as you've already mentioned, the humanitarian situation is certainly getting worse. I went to several of the areas, remote areas, where some of the internally displaced people are finding it increasingly difficult to get access to food and even water. And then, on the military front, there is a stalemate on a lot of the—on the side of the ground war, whilst also a new offensive was actually launched on the Red Sea Coast whilst I was in Yemen in January, that then pushed a lot of the civilian population into these incredibly remote areas where there are no aid agencies to support them and to provide shelter and to provide food. So, across the country, really, it doesn't matter which side of the front line you are, if you're a civilian. People are finding it increasingly difficult to both access food and to be able to afford to pay for food, because many of the government employees have not been paid for more than six, seven months now, and so that reduces people's capacity to even purchase goods, even when they are available, in areas where they're not affected by the conflict.

So, really, there's a massive sense of war weariness amongst the civilian population. People are just really desperate for this war to come to an end, obviously. But certainly, on the political side, there is no indication that is about to happen. And, in fact, the warring parties are not even willing to even engage or speak with the U.N. special envoy who is charged with trying to find a political resolution to the conflict. So, both on the military front, things are shifting slightly or have done, but certainly, on the humanitarian side, things are getting worse, with the prediction now of wheat supplies soon to run out in perhaps the coming weeks, or certainly in the next two months, that that is only going to get worse, as well.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Iona, as this humanitarian situation is worsening, the Trump administration is reportedly planning changes to the U.S. policy in Yemen. Could you tell us a little about the kinds of changes that are being considered and what their impact would be if they're put into place?

IONA CRAIG: So, one thing that appears to have already been changed, from what we've heard, is Yemen now, or parts of Yemen, anyway, being regarded as areas of active hostility. Now, that's quite a technical term, but essentially what it means is those selected areas are put on a war footing the same as Iraq and Afghanistan. So, previously, under the Obama administration, Yemen was considered an area outside of active hostility, so there were different protocols put in place to ensure the prevention of civilian casualties. And it meant that when drone strikes or airstrikes or raids were carried out, that there had to be a near certainty that there were no civilian casualties. Obviously, that didn't always work. I have spent many years covering Yemen, and that included covering incidents of mass civilian casualties under the Obama administration. But now, when that changes to put in parts of the country into areas of active hostility, that near certainty basically gets chucked out of the window, and it means that those civilian casualties are kind of allowed and only have to be proportional. So, that's obviously very concerning for the civilian population in Yemen. We've also seen more military activity, as you've already mentioned, in the form of airstrikes. So that's more military activity, less oversight, because of the way the command structure is now—appears to have been changing, as well, in the sense that the military is going to be allowed to take more decisions on that level without the kind of micromanaging the Obama administration was always accused of, as well as moving these—removing these protocols to—that were supposed to, anyway, protect civilian lives.

In addition to that, now there is talk of the U.S. wanting to become more involved on the side of the Saudi-led coalition, who have, of course, been carrying out this aerial bombing campaign against the Houthi-Saleh forces, who are predominantly in northern Yemen, and have been carrying out this aerial bombing campaign against them, and ground war, since March 2015. Now, the U.S. wants to—has been—has put in a request to become more involved, particularly in an offensive that the Emiratis, the UAE, who are part of the Saudi-led coalition, are looking to launch on the Red Sea Coast, particularly on the port of Hodeidah, which is a vital supply line for northern Yemen, which is the most densely populated part of the country, which relies heavily on that route for the import of food.

Now, the most troubling part of this request to become more involved with the Saudi-led coalition appears to be because there has been—certainly come out from the White House, from the White House spokesman—this sense of conflating the Houthi rebels, who I mentioned, with Iran. Now, the Houthis have had support from Iran, and that appears to have been increasing, with specific military assistance and weapons to the Houthis over the last nine months. But to call them an Iranian proxy or to conflate them with Iran, it now appears that the—that this almost amounts to the U.S. wanting to start a proxy war with Iran in Yemen. And, of course, that is incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly dangerous for the civilian population, who are already facing famine at the moment, and it's incredibly dangerous because we don't know what the reaction would be from Iran. That reaction may not just be in Yemen. It may be elsewhere in the region, where they're also involved in wars—for example, in Syria. And that's really an unknown quantity. The known quantity is that the civilian population in Yemen will certainly suffer as a consequence of that, if the Americans become more involved in the Saudi-led coalition's efforts in the country.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE LAST ONE? THE HYPOCRASY? 



Independent journalist Iona Craig recently traveled to the Yemeni village where the U.S. Navy SEALs conducted a raid in January that left 25 civilians and one Navy SEAL dead. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer described the raid as "absolutely a success," but Yemeni villagers who spoke to Craig painted a very different picture.



TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Iona Craig, I wanted to ask you about the Navy SEAL raid in Yemen in January that you've investigated, the White House warning journalists and lawmakers last month against criticizing the botched raid by U.S. commandos on a Yemeni village that left 25 civilians and one U.S. soldier dead, William Ryan Owens. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports the January 28th assault killed nine children under the age of 13, with five other children wounded. Among those critical of the raid was Arizona Republican Senator John McCain.


SEN. JOHN McCAIN: When you lose a $75 million airplane, and, more importantly, American lives are—a life is lost, and wounded, I don't believe that you can call it a success.

AMY GOODMAN: White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer lashed out at Senator McCain and journalists for criticizing President Trump's decision to order the raid.


PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: It's absolutely a success. And I think anyone who would suggest it's not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens. He fought knowing what was at stake in that mission. And anybody who would suggest otherwise doesn't fully appreciate how successful that mission was, what the information that they were able to retrieve was and how that will help prevent future terrorist attacks.

KRISTEN WELKER: But even Senator John McCain—

PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: I understand that. I think my statement is very clear on that, Kristen. I think anybody who undermines the success of that rage [sic] owes an apology and a disservice to the life of Chief Owens.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that is Sean Spicer. President Trump, when he addressed a joint session of Congress, brought in the widow of Ryan Owens, but Ryan Owens' father, William Owens, refused to meet with President Trump when his son's body was brought to Dover Air Base, harshly critical of this raid, saying, "Why did he have to do this now, to move so quickly in his administration?" That was one Navy SEAL, and then you have the number of civilian casualties, women and children. What did you find, Iona?

IONA CRAIG: Well, really, the civilians that I spoke to when I went to the village had exactly that same question: Why? Why did the Trump administration choose to carry out this raid? For what reasons? And what are they going to do about it now? Because not only did they put the lives of Navy SEALs at a huge amount of risk, which was highly predictable if you had even a vague understanding of the local politics in that particular area of Yemen at the time, but obviously caused mass civilian casualties. There were 26 people in that village who were killed. As you've already mentioned, many of those were women and children. That village has essentially been abandoned now, because not only—after that raid happened, not only was the entire village strafed and more than 120 livestock were killed, but the U.S. went back a month later, at the beginning of March, and bombed it for four consecutive nights, both with drone strikes and helicopter gunfire, and killed two more children and several more adults. So the last person that I spoke to who was living there, Sheikh Aziz al Ameri, he then left the village and is now living under trees several miles away.

So, the impact on the local population, who were essentially on the same side as U.S. in the civil war in Yemen at the moment—they were fighting against the Houthis, which is exactly what the U.S. has been doing over the last two years—they've not only alienated the entire local population around there, but caused to huge amount of anti-American sentiment. And now tribesmen, who were not al-Qaeda, who are not even al-Qaeda now, but were not before, but are now quite willing and wanting to fight the Americans as a result of this and a result of them killing their children and their wives.

So, I think that what was quite clear before they even went in there was that, and what actually happened was the fact that, all of the local tribesmen in that area came to defend the village when the U.S. Navy SEALs went in there. And that was because they thought the village was being raided by the people they'd been fighting for the last two-and-a-half years, which is the Houthis. They had no notion that it was Americans that were coming in to attack the village when it happened. And that was quite clearly a huge risk when the Americans went in there to carry out this raid, that that would indeed happen. It's the middle of a civil war. That village is right behind the front lines. They had been receiving rocket fire and mortar fire from their opponents in the civil war in the days and weeks before the raid. So, of course it was their assumption that their village was being stormed by the Houthi rebels, whom they've been fighting for so long. So, every man within hearing distance of gunfire came running. I spoke to a man who drove 45 minutes from his neighboring village when he got the call to come and help defend his neighbors' area. And so, I think the risk to the Navy SEALs was massive before they even went in there. It appears that there had been at least some knowledge within the village that they were in fact coming, as well. And so, for all those reasons, the Navy SEALs were being put under a huge amount of risk, and it was highly likely that somebody was going to—one of their team was going to get killed, not to mention then the fact that they inevitably got pinned down by fire, then had to call in air support and basically decimate the entire village in order to be able to extract themselves safely from that situation. And from what I saw, and talking to people, most of that was predictable before they even went in there.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Iona Craig, as you report in the piece, White House spokesperson Sean Spicer said the purpose of the raid was intelligence gathering and not specifically targeting anyone, and that initially the U.S. Central Command posted a video backing Spicer's claim, but that video was subsequently removed when it was proven that it was 10 years old.

IONA CRAIG: Yeah, I mean, two things on that front. Certainly, from what I was told and in addition to statements that appear to have come out from the military since then, they were in fact going after the leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a man called Qasim al-Raymi. I think it's extremely unlikely that they would have been carrying out such a high-risk mission in order to gather laptops, cellphones or intelligence, as they suggest. He was not in the village and, in fact, released an audio statement mocking both Trump and the raid several days later. Although there were some low-level al-Qaeda militants there in one particular house, because of the situation of how the Navy SEALs came under fire, that house was in fact bombed by an airstrike before the SEALs could even get into it, so whatever intelligence they claim to have gathered from there would have come from other buildings where there were no al-Qaeda militants present.

That video that you mentioned, that was—when it was first posted, was labeled as an AQAP—so that's al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—video of how to make bombs, as you say, was—had turned out was 10 years old, had already been available on the internet. Well, AQAP, as it is now, didn't even exist 10 years ago, so even to label it as an AQAP video was kind of laughable, really. And if that's the best of the intelligence that came out of there, then it seems that that was a very high-risk undertaking for very little gain, if that's the best that they can show for it.

But as I mentioned, certainly, the people I spoke to on the ground, when I asked them about what houses the Navy SEALs got into or perhaps access to the dead bodies, who may have been carrying, let's say, cellphones or electrical equipment, they couldn't even clarify to me that the Navy SEALs had got inside buildings or had actually access to the dead. They couldn't say either way, because of the chaos of the situation, it being extremely dark. They obviously didn't have night vision goggles like the Navy SEALs would have. So it wasn't even clear that they had in fact got into any buildings or not. So I think that's highly disputed, that intelligence. And certainly, some of the claims being made over the last few days, that the whole laptop ban was linked to intelligence gathered from the Yemen raid, do not add up at all, from what I've seen being written in the media on that, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Iona, we have less than a minute to go, but earlier this month Amnesty International urged Trump to block future arms sales, writing, "Arming the Saudi Arabia and Bahrain governments risks complicity with war crimes, and doing so while simultaneously banning travel to the U.S. from Yemen would be even more unconscionable," Amnesty wrote. A front-page story in The New York Times today, "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has decided to lift all human rights conditions on a major sale of F-16 fighter jets and other arms to Bahrain in an effort to end a rift between the United States and the critical Middle East ally." If you can, very quickly, talk about the role of U.S. weapons in these conflicts?

IONA CRAIG: In Yemen, it's huge. The U.S. is the biggest exporter to Saudi Arabia, and it's big business for the U.S. But, of course, we know that the majority of civilian casualties in the war in Yemen have been caused by Saudi-led airstrikes. And the U.S. has a huge influence over this. They were—those precision-guided weapons were suspended at the end of last year, and now we're looking at a resumption of that, where the U.S. does actually have influence over Saudi Arabia—not just over Saudi Arabia, but also the continuation of this war, for the weapons that it sells to them and to the logistical support it gives to the Saudi-led coalition in the terms of refueling and in the terms of targets, as well.

So, this is—it is, obviously, worrying for those people and campaigners who have been trying to prevent the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, but also the terms of those sales. There are indications now that those weapons may be sold under commercial terms rather than under military, which also then doesn't attach the same end use issues with them, so there isn't so much scrutiny then with the end use of those weapons in a war like Yemen. And that's also deeply concerning. So, I think now, at a stage where really the attempt should be made to de-escalate the conflict, it's—all indications are now that, in fact, the war in Yemen will be escalated by the activities of the U.S. government right now.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, one last, very quickly, Iona, that we—as we said in our introduction, there have been more airstrikes carried out since the start of 2017 than there were in all of 2016. But you've pointed out in a recent interview that there were more drone strikes in Yemen over the space of 36 hours than there were in all of 2016.

IONA CRAIG: Yes, absolutely. And even in the last 24 hours, there have been U.S. airstrikes—and not just airstrikes, there's naval bombardments, as well, which, of course, were being done under the Obama administration, but those airstrikes have been carried out in Abyan province, in Shabwah, in Hadhramaut, in Ma'rib—in the last 24 hours in Ma'rib, in Shabwah and in Abyan, and also in Al Bayda, as well, earlier on in March. So, yes, there's definitely—there's not just this surge at the beginning of March, where we saw that 36 hours of airstrikes happening very rapidly, but that's been a continuation, as well, now. And as I say, it's not just drone strikes. It's airstrikes from fighter jets, and it's also coming from the sea.

AMY GOODMAN: Iona Craig, we want to thank you for being with us, freelance journalist who was based in Sana'a for years, has continued to go back and forth reporting on what's happening there. Thanks so much for joining us.



The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Why Impeach Trump?



THE ABSURD TIMES


A SIGN FOR THE TIMES



On Impeaching Trump

By

Arthur Schopenhauer



Many of you will not like the points made here.  Too bad.



A recent survey indicated that the most popular American candidate for President right now would be Bernie Sanders, despite his use of the term "socialist" and statements otherwise objectionable to the wealthy.  In addition, we know full well that many who voted for Obama with his message about hope and change, and eliminating the "politics of fear" (meaning George Bush and other Republicans who were then in power) this time voted for Trump.  The only possible reason for this is that the vast majority of the country does not like the way healthcare is handled, how wealth is distributed, how people are treated.



For awhile, blame cast upon minorities will allow the "elite" (meaning the few with most of the money) to escape and divert blame.  However, ultimately the idea of a coalition of the very poor and the workers along with much of the middle class will emerge as a dominate force, unless of course military force is used against them by their own government which is not an unbelievable sernario.



Many American voters, having been stupid enough to vote for Donald Trump, are now regretting it.  Calls for Impeachment abound, and the accusations of "collusion" with the Russians to elect him are based on the basic notion of treason.  The point here is to explain why this is not a great idea, how this came to pass, and what would come to pass if such a movement were possible and came to fruition.  The focus, however, would be on motive and consequences.



The idea that the largest nuclear powers could come to an agreeable truce of sorts and cooperate, at least to avoid a deadly conflict, is propagated as somehow evil and bad for the working class.  The working class, thinking that the real enemy consists of Mexicans and Moslems has so far been diverted, but there is no real evidence that this will continue.  The prospect of an arrangement with Russia has even led to terrorists attacks inside Russia, this time in St. Petersburg. 



There is no real evidence that Putin set out to get Trump elected, none at all.  In fact, there is more evidence that he despised Hillary Clinton than anything else, so let us forget about hacking and all that.  As best I can make out, since I speak no Russian of consequence, and the Cyrillic alphabet is an enormous barrier here, Putin once said that Trump was "Flashy."  That was translated, incorrectly as "bright," and such a mistake is clearly possible.  Given Trump's personality disorder, details to follow, he easily interpreted that to mean Putin considered him a "genius."  Hence his admiration for Putin as far as it goes.



Now why would Putin detest Hillary?  To understand that, you have to understand a bit about Putin.  The Stasi, or Staatssicherheit (State Security) will come in a bit later in connection with Merkel.



Putin was in East Germany during the fall of the Wall.  He was completely alone, cut off from Moscow, expendable part of the KGB, but did burn countless documents as East Germans threatened the building.  He went out alone and told the crowd that it would be best for them not to enter as there were countless armed defenders and that he would hate for them to be shot as he considered them brothers.  They refrained and he returned to finish burning papers.  He eventually made his way to Moscow and after the farce of Yeltsin, became President.  



After his first two terms under the new constitution, he had his friend take over for a few years and then ran again.  Hillary, then Secretary of State, led a charge against him, and used every means possible to overturn him, without success.  She then (and the tape exists somewhere) conferred with NATO allies to depose the pro-Russian government and replace him with what she called "Yaz".  (Some of you may know who I mean.)  Putin never forgot.  There is little doubt that if he could punish her, he would.  The fact that Trump would benefit was "collateral damage," if nothing else.



Further, for centuries, every conflict Russia had was with attacking border states.  The U.S. does not seem to take this into account.  It was, in fact, the reason for the Warsaw Pact.  The Pact was abandoned on the assurance that there would be not encroachment on Russia.  The U.S. has expanded NATO to the point where Russia is now surrounded on its west by hostile countries with the lone exception of Ukraine, a country populated by a vast Russian population.  The entire Eastern part of Ukraine is predominately ethnic Russian.  Crimea was glad to join the Russian Federation as the Wages of each worker increased fourfold as a result.  Clinton was very much in favor of any and all expansion eastward.  Putin and most Russians saw her as a clear threat to their own peace.



There is also doubt as to whether the Russians did in fact do any hacking as the CIA is perfectly capable of forging Russian programming code and, more importantly, nothing that was leaked was erroneous.  Podesta's email account had a password.  It was PASSWORD.  Is it unlikely that someone would try that, perhaps an eleven year old?  Anyway, the whole point is moot.  Surely, we would never interfere in another country's election. 



Trump did much to spread good will when Angela Merkel was here by suggesting that they were both wiretapped by enemies (Obama).  For her, growing up under the Stasi, this was a remarkable statement and she looked at him as if he were insane.  She was close.  He is simply neurotic.



On to the impeachment. 

First, let's look at the line of replacement.  After Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch, Rex Tillerson, and so on.  Not a very nice thing to contemplate. 



So let's look at Trump for the next two years after taking a look at the personality disorder he exhibits.  This is ultimately from DAM V and is, in my opinion, a bit sketchy and the entire edition has too many problems to go into here, however, it is a starting point:



DSM[i]-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

·                        Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

·                        Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

·                        Exaggerating your achievements and talents

·                        Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

·                        Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

·                        Requiring constant admiration

·                        Having a sense of entitlement

·                        Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations

·                        Taking advantage of others to get what you want

·                        Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

·                        Being envious of others and believing others envy you

·                        Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner





One need only have a certain number of these symptoms, and requiring constant admiration, a sense of entitlement, and inability to unwillingness to recognize the need and feelings of others, etc., are certainly there.  The constant admiration is a centerpiece.  Also, he has an exaggerated sense of self-importance.  In other words, he is more or less oblivious of special outside interests.  All of the others in the line of succession want to privatize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and eliminate any of the reforms of the FDR administration.  One the other hand, Trump only wants what will help enhance his sense of self-importance, the rest be damned.



Let us take an example: Obamacare.  He would easily sign a bill repealing Obamacare, but if it repealed the Affordable Care Act, he would veto it.  Many people who benefit from the ACA like it, but hate Obamacare.  It is like the woman in the earlier tea party days who shouted at Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania "Keep your government hands off my Social Security!"  They are morons, but they love Trump and his idiotic rants. 



He has no idea of where Neil Gorsuch stands or how good a judge he is.  He got his name from a list provided by some "Heritage" right wing group, eliminated the female judges, and settled on Gorsuch.  He can only distinguish a judge by how much money it will cost him and how it will affect his brand name.  He does not care that the Judge was Hispanic, he did care that he would rightfully rule against him.  Trump is not a sharp legal mind.



The reason he did not ban Moslems in the gulf states, for example, is that Trump hotels and the like are there with his brand name on them.   Somalia?  Ok, they are all black anyway, aren't they?  (Sessions assured him that they were.  Guliani helped out with the deal of the ban.)  So what if it is stopped in the courts? He will fight and look good to his bigot fans. 



At one time, I was extremely angry with Nancy Pelosi for not allowing the Democratic Majority impeach George Bush because of the proven lies about the Iraq war.  He truly deserved to be impeached, but that would have, after all, left Dick Cheney in charge.  That would have been even more horrible what with his penchant for shooting friend and foe alike.  



Certainly Trump is disgusting and has made it fashionable for white supremacists to attack Blacks, Moslems, and Jews, but these attacks have also led to greater harmony amongst those groups.  Hispanics and women also and yes, I know there are Hispanic women.  The point is, Trump is so ridiculous that he may do something that does not fall in line with the big money if it leads to further unpopularity or is otherwise a blow to his ego.  His lack of comprehension of any real ideology other than self-love or esteem is easier to tolerate than the ideological likes of the other Republicans. 



The only real answer is for the Democratic Party to become a progressive, people centered party.  So far, it has not done very well, allowing the Zionist lobby stop Ellison from becoming head of the DNC.  Still, it is the only real solution. 



His family now rules the country.  Kushner will bring peace to the middle east, restructure the U.S. government, stimulate scientific progress in "innovation," and still keep Ivanka satisfied.



The Romanovs thought the same about themselves, but they did not end happily.



Trump will always be happy, as he is, by his own definition, superb. 



Besides, he will now make us safe from a nuclear attack from North Korea.  After all, a missile could reach the West Coast in 20 minutes and we could not detect it as it is limited by the speed of light and our many jets would be useless, no?



At any rate, with the structure of state such as it is right now, impeachment is a futile gesture and would only perpetuate matters.












[i] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association, usually considered the authority on mental illnesses.