Day: March 31, 2023

History’s Evil Women

Women’s History #6

It is women’s history month and most posts are about the accomplishments of women like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Gertrude Bell, etc…..but who has ever mentioned those women that were just plain damn evil?

Let me one of the first to bring you the 10 most evil women in history….

Number 10…Mary Queen of Scotland

Mary was the only child of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon to live past infancy. Crowned after the death of Edward VI and the removal of The Nine Days Queen-Lady Jane Grey, Mary is chiefly remembered for temporarily and violently returning England to Catholicism. Many prominent Protestants were executed for their beliefs leading to the moniker “Bloody Mary.” Fearing the gallows a further 800 Protestants left the country, unable to return until her death. It should be noted that Elizabeth I shares position 10 on this list for her equally bad behavior.

Number 9….Myra Hindley, a murderer….

Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were responsible for the “Moors murders” occurring in the Manchester area of Britain from 1963 to 1965. Together these two monsters were responsible for the kidnapping, sexual abuse, torture, and murder of three children under the age of 12 and two teenagers, aged 16 and 17. A key found in Myra’s possession led to incriminating evidence stored at a left-luggage depot at Manchester Central Station. The evidence included a tape recording of one of the murder victims screaming as Hindley and Brady raped and tortured her. In the final days before incarceration, she developed a swagger and arrogant attitude that became her trademark. Police secretary Sandra Wilkinson has never forgotten seeing Hindley and her mother Nellie, leaning against the courthouse eating sweets. While the mother was obviously and understandably upset, Hindley seemed indifferent and uncaring of her situation.

There are more waiting for you to learn about their lives.

https://listverse.com/2007/09/09/top-10-most-evil-women/

This ends my women’s history series….hopefully my readers learned something and will retain what they learned.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

To Arrest A President

Yes more history from the old Professor.

All the blah blah about the possibility of the arrest of an American president, Donald Trump. Many have raised concern because no American president has been arrested so why start a precedent now.   (Personally I think many of them should have been….but that is just me)

There are the so-called Dems that keep going on and on without much thought behind their idiotic ramblings.

All that aside has any president ever been arrested?

Glad you asked….yes there has been one incident.

There is a lot of hullaballoo about whether former President Trump will soon be indicted, but there is one former president who was definitely arrested while in office: Ulysses S. Grant. The crime, per the Washington Post, was born of “Grant’s love of fast horses,” and ended with the arrest of a sitting president by a Black man who had served in his army during the Civil War. The Post cites a 1908 story in the Washington Evening Star in which one since-retired police officer, William H. West, gave a bit of a tell-all about the time in 1872 in which he arrested his former boss. It goes a little like this:

DC cops had been getting complaints of speeding carriages; there had been an accident, and West was investigating when another group of scofflaws sped toward him. He flagged them down, including one man driving “a pair of fast steppers,” per the Star story, which “he had some difficulty in halting.” It was the president, He was less than pleased, asking West, “what do you want with me?” West informed him that he was “violating the law by speeding along this street,” and further had “set an example for a lot of other gentlemen.” Grant made his apologies, said it would never happen again, and was let off with a warning. But the next night, West again busted Grant going so fast that, per the Post, “it took him an entire block to stop.” Grant told West he had no idea he was going so fast.

This time West wasn’t having it. He told the Star that Grant was smiling and looked like a busted schoolkid. West’s quote, which granted is recalling a 36-year-old incident, is thus: “I am very sorry, Mr. President, to have to do it. For you are the chief of the nation, and I am nothing but a policeman, but duty is duty, sir, and I will have to place you under arrest.” And so he did. Grant and some other alleged speeders went down to the DC pokey, and the sitting president of the United States of America had to pony up $20 as collateral. A trial was held for the drivers the next day, and fines and a “scathing rebuke” were issued. But the president, dear readers, was a no-show.

If Trump is arrested he would not be the first.

But that was then and this is now….different times indeed.

So what will all this notoriety do for his possible campaign?

First of all, let’s get the obvious question out of the way: No, the indictment of Donald Trump does not bar him from running for president. In fact, even a conviction likely wouldn’t put the kibosh on his presidential campaign. “There are actually not that many constitutional requirements to run for president,” a law professor explains to the Washington Post. “There is not an explicit prohibition in the Constitution in respects to having a pending indictment or even being convicted.” The Post notes, however, that practically speaking, it could be difficult to run for president and face a criminal trial at the same time.

Do not excited right now.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

AUMF–The Long Good-bye

AUMF?

For those that spend more time worrying about what Tater Swifty is doing….AUMF stands for….Authorization for the Use of Military Force…..the power for the president to go to war with consulting Congress.

The US Senate has finally shown a little spine (something I never thought they were capable of doing)….

The Senate voted Wednesday to repeal the resolution that gave a green light for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an effort to end more than 20 years of authorization for US presidents to use force in that country and return those war powers to Congress, reports the AP. The measure would repeal the 1991 authorization that sanctioned the US-led Gulf War as well. What you need to know:

  • Background. The October 2002 votes to give George W. Bush broad authority for the Iraq invasion were a defining moment for many members of Congress as the country debated whether a military strike was warranted. The US was already at war in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration had drummed up support among members of Congress and the American public for invading Iraq by promoting what turned out to be false intelligence alleging Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Then-Sen. Joe Biden voted in favor.
  • Background II. Some lawmakers fear the Iraq war powers could be used for purposes Congress never intended. President Trump’s administration cited the 2002 Iraq war resolution as part of its legal justification for a 2020 US drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, but the two war powers resolutions have otherwise rarely been used as the basis for any presidential action. A separate 2001 authorization for the global war on terror would remain in place under the bill, which President Biden has said he will support.
  • Wednesday’s vote. Senators voted 66-30 in favor of repeal. If passed by the House, the repeal would not be expected to affect any current military deployments. But lawmakers in both parties are increasingly seeking to claw back congressional powers over US military strikes and deployments.
  • Supporters. Supporters, including almost 20 Republican senators, say the repeal is crucial to prevent future abuses and to reinforce that Iraq is now a strategic partner of the United States.
  • Critics. Opponents have raised concerns about recent attacks against US troops in Syria, including a recent drone strike and rocket attack that Iranian-backed militants are thought to have been behind. Biden and his administration have argued that the repeal would not affect any response to Iran. American troops are authorized to protect themselves and respond to attacks, including under Article 2 of the Constitution, which gives the president the authority to protect troops.
  • Prospects. The repeal’s future is less certain in the House, where 49 Republicans joined with Democrats in supporting a similar bill two years ago. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has suggested he is open to supporting a repeal even though he previously opposed it, but Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has indicated he would like to instead replace it with something else. It is unclear what that would be.
  • Congressional history. The New York Times reports that of the lawmakers who cast a vote for the 2002 Iraq war authorization, just 69 are still in Congress. Roughly half of them voted in favor of authorization. Today, all but 17 are in favor of repeal.
  • Implications. Should the repeal come to pass, “it would also be a crucial first step toward building momentum to tackle more significant and far more complicated endeavors,” such as “replacing the authorization Congress passed in 2001 to start military operations against terrorist groups in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,” notes the Times.

The best thing I can say about this issue is….It is about goddamn time!

I guess that makes me a peace-nik….

Peace campaigners cheered Wednesday’s vote by the U.S. Senate to repeal the authorizations for the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, while calling on the House of Representatives to follow suit.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/aumf-iraq

Enough Said!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”