Category: Political Pandemonium
Texas prisons ban ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ but not Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’

https://www.rt.com/usa/412449-texas-prisons-ban-books/

Texas prisons ban ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ but not Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’

Texas prisons ban ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ but not Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’
Thousands of books are considered prohibited reading for inmates doing time in Texas prisons. The list of banned and permissible material, however, has raised some eyebrows.

The Texas prison system has banned more than 10,000 selections from the shelves of their on-site libraries, yet it is sometimes difficult to find the logic behind the decision-making process.

For example, Alice Walker’s ‘The Color Purple,’ which was awarded the 1983 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, will not be found in Texas prisons. Yet inmates may cuddle up at night with a copy of Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ the notoriously anti-Semitic tract that Hitler began writing, ironically, while behind bars.

‘The Color Purple’ is forbidden because it describes a rape scene.

Other selections with completely innocuous titles – including ‘Hello Kitty,’ ‘Harry Potter Film Wizardry’ and ‘The Amazing Spider Man’ – are prohibited not because of their content, but because they may contain pop-up sections or multilayer pages with which it may be possible to conceal contraband.

Other books are banned from prison libraries in Texas because they may provide certain information that prison officials would prefer not to be disseminated. For example, the ‘History of Pubs and Pubs Signs’ got blacklisted because it contains a section outlining the manufacture of alcohol.

Not everyone, however, agrees that there should be a blacklist for certain controversial books.

“To block access to ‘Where’s Waldo’ on the one hand, and Shakespeare on the other, doesn’t preserve order,” James LaRue, the director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association, told the New York Times. “It preserves ignorance and imprisonment. All too often, prison censorship, in addition to being an arbitrary abuse of authority, denies the incarcerated the chance to get out of jail and stay out.”

Nevertheless, some of the titles from the lengthy banned list – including ‘Concealed Carry Handguns,’ ‘The Complete Survival Guide,’ ‘The Idiot’s Guide to Kickboxing’ and ‘FBI Handbook of Crime Scene Forensics’ – seem like obvious choices to keep out of the hands of the general prisoner population.

At the same time, one may wonder how ‘My Awakening’ by David Duke, an American white nationalist, got the green light.

Novels of an erotic nature are only banned if the sexual behavior is unlawful, which explains why some of E.L. James’ ‘Fifty Shades’ books were deemed inappropriate.

“If the book does not violate the uniform offender correspondence policy, then offenders are allowed to have it,” Clark, a spokesman at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told The New York Times. “Offenders have access to thousands of publications.”

Prisoners serving time in the Texas prison system have access to more than 248,000 titles, which were detailed by the Dallas Morning News in November.

According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, a publication may be banned because it contains:

– Information on the manufacture of explosives, weapons or drugs.

– Material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption, like strikes, riots.

– Graphic presentations of illegal sex acts, “such as rape, incest, sex with a minor, bestiality, necrophilia or bondage.”

– Sexually explicit images. “Naked or partially covered buttocks” does not necessarily mean automatic disapproval. Staff review required for publications containing nudity on a case-by-case basis.

– Information on criminal schemes or “how to avoid detection of criminal schemes.”

– Contraband that cannot be removed.

What if Donald Trump loses and refuses to leave? | Opinion

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/12/what_if_trump_loses_and_refuse.html

What if Donald Trump loses and refuses to leave? | Opinion

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller zeroed in on President Donald Trump's business dealings with Deutsche Bank as his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in U.S. elections widens. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Special prosecutor Robert Mueller zeroed in on President Donald Trump’s business dealings with Deutsche Bank as his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in U.S. elections widens. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

In the annals of sore losers, few presidents stand out like John Adams after his loss to Thomas Jefferson in 1800. On Inauguration Day, the testy Adams passed up his successor’s swearing-in. He left the White House, boarded his horse-drawn coach and fled toward Quincy, Mass., before sunrise.

Adams’ offense was leaving too soon. The question worrying me, however, is: What if Congress ousts Donald Trump by impeachment — or he’s defeated for reelection — and he won’t go?

Before you sneer at this notion as preposterous, consider the exhausting list of our president’s normalized behaviors and outrageous offenses that, two years ago, would have been unfathomable: A torrent of lies and insulting tweets, public affection for tyrants, turning the presidency into a profit center, alleged obstruction of justice, unabashed racism, praise of Nazis and stunning denigration of the State Department, FBI and CIA.

Today, Trump’s ill-mannered, infantile and illegal behavior prompts nary a raised eyebrow with 30 percent of the public. The rest, meanwhile, cannot remain scandalized about yesterday’s outrage because of today’s new outrage and the expectation of what fresh hell comes tomorrow.

The other day, Trump endorsed Roy Moore, the bigoted, lawless Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Alabama accused of child molestation. This shameful, shocking endorsement is now known as “something that happened on Monday.”

The idea Trump might barricade himself in the White House, declare his impeachment unconstitutional — or his reelection stolen — is within the realm of possibility. It comports with what we know about Trump’s anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies. From there, it’s easy to picture Trump going a dangerous step further and urging his supporters to descend on Washington and prevent his removal. Honestly, it doesn’t take much imagination to envision Trump, if he loses, encouraging civil unrest to save his hide.

Hogwash, you say. The president must leave if the Senate convicts or voters reject him. OK, show me the clause in the Constitution that spells out who arrests a defeated president and escorts him from the White House. Here’s what the Constitution says about presidents who refuse to leave: Nothing, absolutely nothing.

It turns out American democracy is built upon the now-shaky assumption that our elected officials respect the voters’ will. Our system works because those who serve at all levels know they answer to the people. The president is not above the law. And no one, especially the president, has the legal standing to veto an election (or an impeachment conviction by the Senate).

The United States differs from pseudo-democracies in that if you lose, no one need send the cops or the troops to extract you from office. It’s been the long tradition in American politics that losing, outgoing officials cooperate in the transition of power.

I ask you this: Knowing what you know about Trump, his values and his personality, what are the chances he would relinquish the office peacefully?

If you don’t believe Trump regards himself as above the law, consider that his attorney recently declared it impossible for the president to obstruct justice, the key charge against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton during their respective impeachment proceedings.

The “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case,” Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, told Mike Allen of the news site Axios last weekend. Trump and his spokespersons have yet to repudiate the outrageous position that the president is now a monarch.

A president such as Trump, with autocratic impulses, who persists in claiming the popular vote was stolen from him by three million illegal ballots would have no qualms voiding the results of the next election.

A Congress that attempted to enforce the election outcome or its impeachment decision could not remove Trump from office if he resolved to stay. What official could get past the Secret Service to arrest and imprison a former president who refuses to abdicate? Does that mean defenders of democracy might have to storm the White House, overpower the former president’s protectors and drag him from the building?

Laugh at this scenario, but two years ago you would have scoffed at the possibility of 95 percent of what Trump has done since Jan. 20. Consider also the recent speculation that Trump might fire special counsel Robert Mueller or pardon himself and current and former staff members if they are indicted. After Trump sacked FBI Director James Comey, these once-preposterous notions are now conventional wisdom. None of it should surprise anyone who’s paid attention.

In the era of Trump, the obscene becomes normalized. What was unimaginable last year is next year’s plausible nightmare. I pray it will not happen, but with Donald Trump as president, it would be foolish not to discuss it and prepare for just such a constitutional crisis.

Robert Mann, an author and former U.S. Senate and gubernatorial staffer, holds the Manship Chair in Journalism at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. Read more from him at his blog, Something Like the Truth. Follow him on Twitter @RTMannJr or email him at bob.mann@outlook.com.

US Republican lawmaker Bob Corker: Donald Trump could put US ‘on path to WWIII’
| October 9, 2017 | 9:31 am | Donald Trump, Political Pandemonium | No comments

http://p.dw.com/p/2lU33

US Republican lawmaker Bob Corker: Donald Trump could put US ‘on path to WWIII’

US Republican lawmaker Bob Corker: Donald Trump could put US ‘on path to WWIII’

Republican Bob Corker, a former supporter of Trump, has voiced “concern” at the US president’s actions, which he says could lead to war. The comment comes amid a growing spat between the two men.

US President Donald Trump came under attack from a top member of his own Republican party on Sunday, with Senator Bob Corker telling The New York Times that the president’s threats toward other countries could put America “on the path to World War III.”

In the Times interview, Corker accused the president of running his administration like a “reality show,” a barb alluding to Trump’s previous television activities as host of the game show “The Apprentice.”

“He concerns me,” Corker said. “He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.”

Long-running feud

Corker, a former Trump ally who chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has in recent months turned into one of the president’s most outspoken Republican critics. The two men are involved in a vitriolic and public feud on social media that lays bare profound rifts within the Republic party, where few have openly dared to defy the president.

Trump on Sunday unleashed a tirade of tweets against Corker, saying that Corker had decided against running for re-election in 2018 because he lacked the “guts” and that he was “largely responsible for the horrendous” nuclear deal with Iran.

Corker’s response was stinging, suggesting that the president wasn’t being properly supervised in a White House that had been turned into an “adult day care center.”

The spat could be detrimental to Trump’s legislative agenda, as Corker’s voice is vital regarding not only the nuclear deal with Iran, which the president wants to scrap, but also passing tax reform.

Read more:  What is the Iran nuclear deal?     

About JW Player 6.12.4956 (Premium edition)

         

Trump on Iran

 

Former favorite

The faltering relationship between Trump and Corker, who was reportedly once considered as a potential secretary of state, took a turn for the worse in August after Trump made much-criticized remarks about violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. Corker said the president had failed to demonstrate the stability and competence essential for his job.

The feud deepened last week when Trump seemed to withdraw his confidence in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after Tillerson attempted to find channels for dialogue with North Korea. Trump tweeted that Tillerson was “wasting his time trying to negotiate.”

In an apparent reference to Trump, Corker told reporters on Wednesday that the secretary of state was not getting the support he needed from above, calling Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly “people who help separate our country from chaos.”

tj/kms (AFP, AP)