#how does that equal an overturned conviction!?

[gamergirl929]

95% of the time, I hate being an American because of stupid shit like this.

[youngtreetheorist]

A Guilty Plea Doesn’t Equal Guilt

Even though Drake Bell pled guilty, that does not mean he is guilty in the true sense. Many people take plea deals for various reasons, such as avoiding a harsher sentence, financial constraints, or simply because they feel pressured by the legal system. Pleading guilty does not always equal actual guilt.

Here are some people who pled guilty but were later exonerated:

The Central Park Five (now the Exonerated Five) – These five teenagers falsely confessed to a crime they didn’t commit due to intense police pressure. Years later, DNA evidence and the real perpetrator's confession proved their innocence.

Brian Banks – A promising football player who pled no contest to avoid a potential life sentence after being falsely accused of rape. His accuser later admitted she lied, and his conviction was overturned.

The West Memphis Three – Three teenagers (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley) were convicted of murdering three young boys in 1993. Under pressure, Misskelley, who had an intellectual disability, falsely confessed. Years later, new DNA evidence showed they were innocent. In 2011, they took an Alford plea, maintaining their innocence while pleading guilty to secure their release.

Alford Pleas (Used in Wrongful Convictions) – Some innocent people accept plea deals (Alford pleas) where they maintain their innocence but plead guilty to get a lesser sentence. Examples include Henry Alford himself and others who later had their convictions overturned.

Drake Bell’s situation shows how the legal system isn’t always about truth but about negotiation and pressure. Just because someone pleads guilty doesn’t mean they actually did what they’re accused of.

Drake Bell pled guilty due to multiple factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, financial strain from the investigation, and the fact that his son had just been born. Based on a YouTube video, it sounds like his lawyers knew he was being railroaded. Witness testimony and the investigation proved that Jane Doe lied.

Court documents revealed that Jane Doe had a crush on Drake, a friend stopped talking to her because her obsession became too much, and she was upset because she wanted to marry him. Her resentment grew when he married Janet Von Schmeling, leading her to become vindictive. In a Snapchat conversation, Janet responded to Jane Doe saying, "I can get him to unblock you," proving that Drake had blocked her. Jane Doe admitted to Janet that she had multiple accounts.

Witnesses also stated that Drake was never alone with Jane Doe. Forensic evidence confirmed that no images were sent, the Snapchat account in question did not belong to him, and he did not even have one. During the sentencing hearing, the judge explicitly stated that this was not a sex case. All parties agreed that no images were exchanged and no sexual activity occurred. However, at sentencing, Jane Doe made new allegations that had never been part of the original case.

In legal proceedings, prosecutors, family, friends, and other witnesses can still make statements at sentencing. However, in Jane Doe’s case, no one came forward to support her new claims because everyone knew she was lying. Despite everything being proven false, Drake Bell was charged because he had unknowingly responded to a fake account and blocked Jane Doe once her real age was revealed. Since Jane Doe was still a minor, the court ruled that the situation caused her emotional harm, which is why he was charged with child endangerment.

It’s important to note that child endangerment is not a charge for pedophilia or grooming—it means putting a child's safety or emotional well-being at risk.

[forest-faerie-witch]

RIP America

I have been up all night. I've been following the campaign since Harris was at the first DNC. I have hoped and hoped that she would win. But now, as that lunatic is 3 points from winning, my chest is tight and I'm fighting tears.

I've been terrified through this whole thing. Afraid of losing my right to control my own body. Scared of losing my disability income. Worried about my daughter's rights. I'm deeply troubled about our world. What is going to happen to Ukraine now? To our immigrant friends?

There are things I can't wrap my head around. How is it OK for a convicted criminal to not only run for public office, but THE public office? To lead our entire country?! How is this lawful? How did our founding fathers not anticipate this? Did they just think "Well, it's just common sense, right?" They obviously didn't have the foresight to see the state of human beings in this century.

And what happened to separation of church and state? Why are the religious nuts still waving their bibles around at my uterus? How about, it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! You wanna believe in your god? Good for you. But don't tell me how to live just because we don't agree. I don't tell you what to do. I don't care. It's a free country, right? Well, apparently not if we are still being held to christian ideals.

This country was NOT based on religion. It was based on the freedom from religious persecution. (Do your homework people). It is NOT one nation under god. That was added to our money and our pledge in the 50s by... you guessed it, the religious right. Look it up. It's fact.

And now women are going to continue to die because of the abortion bans because of that fucking maniac's overturning of Roe v Wade. And once he's in office his MAGAtards are going to feel it's open season on all "other" people. Gays, trans, some of whom I call friends. It's going to be the wild west. Redneck ideology will only be rivaled by the christian right, comingled in most cases.

Haven't we had enough racism? Isn't there enough hate already? You guys - the HALF of our country who thought it was a great idea to put this fucking piece of shit back in the white house - are going to see. Yeah, you think he's so funny. "Oh he just says it like it is, says what's on his mind, etc." Oh yes, so presidential. If I want to talk shit with people, I don't go to the white house for it. I want my commander in chief to be presidential. Not a fucking convicted rapist, cheater, misogynist, lying waste of air.

He is going to pardon himself. All he's wanted through this whole thing was to win so he wouldn't go to prison. You'll see. He does NOT CARE ABOUT YOU! All he cares about is Donald Trump. He surrounds himself with sycophants who lick his arsehole and do his bidding. He'll let all the lunatics out that attacked our capitol. Insurgents. People, wake the fuck up! Think about this. All you who consider yourself "patriots," how would you feel if a group of people attacked the capitol when it wasn't your idea? You'd be furious!

I'm not saying Kamala was perfect. And she did the best she could in the short time she had to run. But at least she had solid plans for furthering our people. Her vision was one of unity, safety, equal rights and building the economy where everyone has a fair shot. I've never heard a single detailed policy from that... thing. All he does is wave his hands around and say don't worry, it's going to be great.

WHAT'S GOING TO BE GREAT?!!!!! Explain it to me. Tell me how you're going to do these things? Oh right. Tariffs. The idiot doesn't even know how tariffs work. Tariffs will cost the AMERICAN PEOPLE! If an exporter has to pay more to export their goods to us, then the companies that buy those goods have to pay more, and in turn, we pay that difference. The man is a moron. It's no wonder all his businesses fail and he filed bankruptcy 6 times.

He has no idea how to run a country. He let 100s of thousands of people die with his deplorable handling of COVID. Inject bleach... how fucking stupid can someone be. He inherited a good economy from Obama and fucked it up. And then has the nerve to further hypnotize his cult followers saying his presidency was the best ever. His economy the best ever. Everything the best ever. When the rest of the world knows he was the least popular president - ever. Was the worst president. He's so deluded by his own ego he believes his own lies and then so do his followers.

I'm old. I have a small income. I can't afford to pack up and try and find another country to live in. And believe me, I've been looking into it. But the only way you can live in another country is if you have MONEY. If you can't contribute to society in another country, good luck moving there. But the prospect of living in a Trump dystopia is terrifying.

Let's hope that I'm wrong. I'm really hoping I am.

[the-psudo]

National Security Leaders Endorse Harris

September 22, 2024

To the American People,

We are former public servants who swore an oath to the Constitution. Many of us risked our lives for it. We are retired generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors, and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are loyal to the ideals of our nation—like freedom, democracy, and the rule of law—not to any one individual or party.

We do not agree on everything, but we all adhere to two fundamental principles. First, we believe America’s national security requires a serious and capable Commander-in-Chief. Second, we believe American democracy is invaluable. Each generation has a responsibility to defend it. That is why we, the undersigned, proudly endorse Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States.

This election is a choice between serious leadership and vengeful impulsiveness. It is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Vice President Harris defends America’s democratic ideals, while former President Donald Trump endangers them.

We do not make such an assessment lightly. We are trained to make sober, rational decisions. That is how we know Vice President Harris would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief, while Mr. Trump has proven he is not up to the job. As leaders, we know effective leadership requires in-depth knowledge, careful deliberation, understanding of your adversaries, and empathy for those you lead. It requires listening to those with expertise and not firing them when they disagree with you.

Vice President Harris has proven she is an effective leader able to advance American national security interests. Her relentless diplomacy with allies around the globe preserved a united front in support of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. She grasps the reality of American military deterrence, promising to preserve the American military’s status as the most “lethal” force in the world.

The contrast with Mr. Trump is clear: where Vice President Harris is prepared and strategic, he is impulsive and ill-informed. He has heaped praise on adversarial dictators like China’s Xi Jinping, North Korea’s Kim Jung Un, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, as well as the terrorist leaders of Hezbollah. Conversely, he has publicly and privately excoriated the leaders of our most steadfast allies, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and Germany. He abandoned our Kurdish allies while ceding influence in the Middle East to Russia, Iran, and China.

Further, Mr. Trump denigrates our great country and does not believe in the American ideal that our leaders should reflect the will of the people. While Vice President Harris follows the democratic norms we expect of any political leader—including promising to abide by the outcome of the pending election and respecting the rule of law—Mr. Trump is the first president in American history to actively undermine the peaceful transfer of power, the bedrock of American democracy.

Mr. Trump threatens our democratic system; he has said so himself. He has called for the “termination” of parts of the Constitution. He said he wants to be a “dictator,” and his clarification that he would only be a dictator for a day is not reassuring. He has undermined faith in our elections by repeating lies, without evidence, of “millions” of fraudulent votes.

He has shown no remorse for trying to overturn the 2020 election on January 6th, promises to pardon the convicted perpetrators, and has made clear he will not respect the results of the 2024 election should he lose again.

That alone proves Mr. Trump is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

We believe, as President Ronald Reagan said, that “America is a shining city on a hill.” Yet in this election, one of President Reagan’s more ominous warnings is equally relevant. “Freedom,” he said, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Our endorsement of Vice President Harris is an endorsement of freedom and an act of patriotism. It is an endorsement of democratic ideals, of competence, and of relentless optimism in America’s future. We hope you will join us in voting for her.

Sincerely,

President of National Security Leaders for America:

[see the list of 740+ signatories, including 230 'generals and flag officers']

[oscarealejandro]

I just learned about this villain, Jennifer Bonjean, a defense lawyer who has represented R. Kelly, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and potentially P. Diddy.

Earlier this year she filed a petition in case of her client R. Kelly for a writ of certiorari, a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case to review.

"The argument set forth by Kelly’s attorneys centers on the the 2003 PROTECT Act, which extended the federal statute of limitations for such cases. The petition for writ of certiorari states that the conduct for which the singer is convicted — specifically creating child pornography and enticing minors into illegal sexual activity — occurred prior to the law being passed. Because the acts date back to the Nineties, lawyers argue, the statute of limitations would have expired."

R. Kelly was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his sexual crimes against children (In a victory for the defense, the judge ruled that all but one year of the prison sentence would be served at the same time as a previous 30-year sentence that Mr. Kelly received after a jury in Brooklyn convicted him of racketeering and sex trafficking charges) and if those charges are overturned it would not only negate every victim who has had their lives severely traumatized, but also potentially allow R. Kelly to see the light of day much sooner than expected assuming he is granted parole. The basis for Bonjean filing this petition is that Kelly's actions exceed the statute of limitations and whether or not that is true would normally be important because it's the due diligence of the justice system to abide by the regulations they swore to enforce, but in this specific case we're arguing semantics. The man paraded around for decades and was praised as a cultural icon for a majority of my lifetime before he was punished for acts that everybody knew he was committing.

This clip from the renowned satirical series, The Boondocks, does a great job of touching on the cultural phenomenon that is R. Kelly and how we as a society played a role in him avoiding justice. I was in elementary school when I learned about R. Kelly's marriage to Aliyah and the video recording of him urinating on a 14-year old girl and even at ~8 years old I was curious as to why everyone was just okay with it.

This New York Times article discusses his accusations in further detail and why so many ignored the signs.

This is the man Bonjean is aggressively advocating to be released into society. I would advise that you save your breath before you gasp out of shock because this is far from unusual behavior for someone like her. As mentioned earlier, she represented Bill Cosby in his infamous case involving sexual misconduct, and also worked to overturn his conviction of 3-10 years in prison stemming from more than 50 women accusing Cosby of a range of sexual assault and misconduct, including rape.

Bonjean is a despicable, vile excuse of a person who lacks shame and is equally evil as the perverts she elects to represent. Another New York Times article writes that she "Called one woman who accused R. Kelly of sexual abuse 'a pathological liar.' She accused another of extortion. She tried to pick their accounts apart, and attacked prosecutors for stripping her client, the former R&B star, of 'every single bit of humanity that he has.'"

Bonjean's biography on her firm's website details what motivated her to attend law school:

Bonjean’s life took an unexpected turn when she began volunteering for the women’s services division of the YWCA of Metropolitan Chicago. At the YWCA, Bonjean was a rape crisis counselor and victim’s rights advocate for under-served and marginalized women who were victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.

One would think that the exposure to the suffering and traumatizing impact left on these victims would influence her to pursue a path where she could provide a sense of support, but not Bonjean..

While in law school, Bonjean quickly began to identify with the underdog, which in the criminal justice system is the accused.

I'll end this with a case that was lesser known to me. In June 2019, Keith Raniere, the founder and leader of Nxivm (a human trafficking cult disguised as a self help group), was tried and convicted of all seven counts of a superseding indictment charging him with racketeering and racketeering conspiracy (including predicate acts of extortion, identity theft, and production and possession of child pornography); sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy; forced labor conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy. On October 27, 2020 he was sentenced to 120 years in prison after 15 victims testified against Raniere in a Brooklyn federal courtroom. Less than 3 months after this sentencing, Bonjean joined Raniere's legal team to assist with the appeal. An appeal that was supported by the clam that by definition, the actions should not be considered a commercial sex act.

Raniere's arguments turn on the meaning of "commercial sex act," which the statute defines as "any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person." 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(3). He principally argues that to qualify as a "commercial sex act," there must be a monetary or financial component to the "[ ]thing of value" that is given or received, and the sexual exploitation must be for profit.

Bonjean did what she does best. She did not argue that her client was innocent, but rather that the justice system failed him. I believe the justice system is not perfect and there are shades of corruption but to use it as a primary source of defense multiple times when there's clear proof against you is asinine. This woman is a diabolical spawn of Satan and a walking ironic figure. To cry corruption as a way of freeing your client is proof of failure in so many areas, including the justice system itself.

Yes, the government conspires to put a lot of innocent black men in jail on fallacious charges but R. Kelly is not one of them... You want to help R. Kelly? Get some help for R. Kelly

[literaturereviewhelp]

The basis and philosophy behind the proposals within the "Quashing Convictions" Report is d quite explicitly by John Reid, the Home Secretary, in his Foreword to the report. He argues that the government is "committed to rebalancing the Criminal Justice System in favour of the victim and the law-abiding majority . . . a promise to change the law about appeals against conviction".1 There are two basic premises that go along with these statements. First, that the Criminal Justice System is currently balanced in favor of criminals and second, that changing the law on the quashing of convictions would somehow change this balance. This review will argue that neither premise is in fact tenable, and further, that the Report exhibits an overall dangerous tendency through suggesting that the Criminal Justice System "should" be balanced in favor of either side. The scales of justice should be equal and balanced. The Foreword to the Report continues with remarkable honesty by stating that the government is "open to suggestions about how we achieve the aims, we are not consulting on the aims themselves or therefore on whether the law should be changed."2 The government has apparently made up its mind on the principles and facts underlying the need for reform, it merely is requesting help on the more mundane task of the practical implementation of the new laws. This review will tackle both the ideas for implementing the laws, and also the doubtful premise that change is actually needed. The government suggests that "where the Court of Appeal are of the view that a conviction is, in the normal sense of the word, 'safe', it should not be possible to quash it."3 The word "safe", at least within the government's rather limited definition of the word, implies that the criminal is in fact guilty of the crime that he/she was accused of. The government wants to stop convicted criminals, who the Court of Appeal have "formed such a view"4 as to their guilt, from having their convictions overturned because of some technicality within the trial or pre-trial process. This point of view is troubling in a number of ways. First, it is a general principle of English common law (since Magna Carta) that the jury is the sole finder of fact as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant in a case. The Court of Appeal does not hear the evidence (it merely reads it), it does not experience the demeanor of the witnesses and/or the accused within court and within their testimony. Thus it is put in the place of any person who might read the transcript of a trial and is asked to consider the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Whether guilt or innocence is best determined by a jury of one's peers is debatable, but beside the point: it is the system that is in place within the United Kingdom. Other justice systems, such as the French5, which may be just as fair, do not use the jury system, and within such a system, the idea of the Court of Appeal being essentially a secondary trier of fact and guilt/innocence makes more sense. But the system being suggested by the government puts the Court of Appeal in a problematic situation. The idea that the Court should not allow a appeal "when" it has the view that the defendant is in fact guilty begs the question of how the Court is meant to determine guilt or innocence Read the full article

[wolint]

THE VALUE OF WORK!

THE VALUE OF WORK

Proverbs 13:11

 

The Bible’s positive outlook on work is rooted in its teaching about God. The Supreme Being, Scripture unashamedly describes God as a worker. Like a manual labourer, God made the universe as “the work of his fingers” according to Psalm 8:3. God worked with raw material just as a potter works with clay, as described in Isaiah 45:9.

The Bible consistently teaches that hard work increases the probability of blessings and success and guarantees a prosperous character and fulfilling spiritual life. Proverbs 12:11 says, “A hard worker has plenty of food, but a person who chases fantasies has no sense.”

Work matters to God! No matter what your profession or occupation—whether you’re a parent, a bus driver, an artist, an engineer, a chef, or anything else—God cares about your work. How does God expect us to approach our work?

Work is part of God’s big picture. God’s created order started with the perfect garden in Genesis 1 and will be consummated in the perfect city, the New Jerusalem, in Revelation 3:12.

God set the example of work for us, starting with the intricate development of the unborn child in the womb and the vast, magnificent spread of the sky that displays His supreme craftsmanship, as described in Psalms 139:13-16 and 19:1. All creation bears witness to God’s wisdom and skill, as stated in Psalm 104:24.

While work is important and necessary, rest is equally encouraged, as the Lord shows us in Genesis 2:2-3. He enjoyed job satisfaction when surveying His achievements at the end of the week in Genesis 1:31. This vivid biblical description of a working God reaches its climax with the incarnation of Jesus. The “work” that Jesus was given to do in John 4:34 was, of course, the unique task of redemption. But He was also a worker in the ordinary sense.

Jesus’ contemporaries knew Him as “a carpenter” in Mark 6:3. Carpentry and joinery are muscle-building trades, so Jesus really laboured. The Jesus who stormed through the temple, overturning tables and driving out the men and animals in John 2:14-16, was not a pale weakling but a working man whose hands had been hardened by years of toil with the axe, saw, and hammer. Hard, physical labour was not beneath the dignity of the Son of God. God took man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it, labour, and keep it in Genesis 2:15. And God’s first command, to “fill the earth and subdue it” in Genesis 1:28, implied a great deal of work for both man and woman.

In an important sense, people today are obeying that command of their Creator when they do their daily work, whether they acknowledge Him or not. Work did not, therefore, arrive in the world as a direct result of the fall into sin. Work was planned by God from the dawn of history for mankind’s good—as natural to men and women as sunset is today, according to Psalm 104:19-23. With emphasis on the dignity and normality of labour, it is not surprising to find that the Scriptures strongly condemn idleness. Proverbs 6:6 says, “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.” Paul is equally blunt in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, saying, “If anyone will not work, let him not eat.” He set a good example in Acts 20:33-35 and 1 Thessalonians 2:9.

God is a working God who is pleased when His people work hard and conscientiously. That conviction lies at the heart of the Bible’s teaching about Christian attitudes toward secular employment. And quite naturally, the New Testament extends the same positive emphasis to cover all Christian service, paid or unpaid.

Those who refuse to work, the Bible insists, even for spiritual reasons, earn no respect from non-Christian onlookers by depending on others to pay their bills, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12.

God provides us with unique skills, gifts, and talents, and calls us to roles and activities. Christians are expected to be productive but remember that all our busy rushing ends in nothing, according to Psalm 39:6.

Prayer: Dear Lord, help me to make sure that I don’t allow my work to compromise my godly values. In Jesus’ name, amen.

Shalom

WOMEN OF LIGHT INT’L PRAYER MIN.

[unbounded-cardinality]

The Thorny Questions Surrounding any Conviction of President Trump

The presidency is a unique office -- not just in America, but in history. In some sense, a presidential election is the ultimate trial: you get elected when a jury of your peers, the American voters, decides whether or not you are the most suitable candidate to be leader of our country.

Is the Law the Law, or is the Law the People?

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion last year, there were widely circulated claims that the court was out of touch with American culture -- that most people supported abortion, that the court had simply made a judgement at odds with American attitudes.

All of this begs the question: is the Law the people's choice, or is the Law the Law? Is there some kind of inherent meaning of the Law -- that you cannot arbitrarily subtract or add from?

I would guess that most pro-choice Americans who opposed the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade are also opposed to another Trump presidency.

But how can this be? If the Law is the People, and the People are pro-choice, then the Law should be pro-choice. And if the People are for Donald Trump -- convicted or not -- then shouldn't Donald Trump be president?

SCOTUS may be in a jam

A conservative court -- one that views the primacy of American Law -- would have to view a conviction of President Donald Trump as a disqualifying event; in short, the court would have to disqualify President Trump from the presidential election.

Much of America would disagree with that decision. There are a couple of problems here.

One, SCOTUS and the presidency are peer branches of the federal government. How, therefore, can SCOTUS disqualify President Trump from office? It would seem to go against the grain of the constitution -- especially the grain of a conservative court that reveres originalist thinking.

Two, if SCOTUS does not disqualify President Trump from a presidential election, then we may accept that SCOTUS allows for a possibly convicted American to run for president.

What would happen to the Law in a 2nd Trump presidency?

An equally confounding dilemma is how well the American judiciary would weather a second Trump presidency. If the Law is the People -- and I think a second Trump presidency would endorse that idea -- we can project certain trends (I leave these to the reader).

The question then will become: is the Law any longer the Law, or would it become something else?

November 6, 2023

[argumate]

it's lame to call people "smug" because everyone is smug, everyone believes their moral convictions are correct, that's what it means to have moral convictions, whether you're pro-slavery or anti-slavery you're going to see your position as simply correct and obvious in a way that seems insufferably smug to people with the opposite position, who are equally convinced not only that you are wrong but that you must know that you are wrong, that you are being actively insincere since the correct position is so easy to see, etc. etc.

accusing someone of being smug says absolutely nothing about whether they are right or wrong, or how convincing is their argument, does it rest on premises of dubious veracity or have implications they have failed to address; smugness allegations add nothing to any debate and lead to the natural rejoinder that the accuser is butthurt, which is equally vacuous and unhelpful.

so I'm going to beat the smugness allegations by ignoring them, smugly, and note in passing that I would love to drop this topic and never mention it again, and that can easily happen if everyone agrees that our current approach to enforcing national borders across most of the world is irritatingly tedious, perversely counterproductive, and often shockingly cruel to millions of people.

I'm not brave for saying that, it's a basic bitch opinion and this is tumblr, people discuss Transformers pornography here openly in public, that's brave.

I certainly never claimed to be humble, and given that I have a casualness that borders on arrogance what I most aspire to is accuracy, so please offer corrections where necessary that I might upgrade my opinions and become even more smug in the future.

there are lots of near universal human preferences I don't like, that is true, and some of them we have steadily shifted over the past hundred years and looking back we say wow, back then there was obviously a right side of history and most people were not on it, either because they stubbornly clung to bad ideas or because they didn't pay attention to ideas in the first place.

consider this news from 2021:

Ninety-four percent of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013. The current figure marks a new high in Gallup's trend, which spans more than six decades. Just 4% approved when Gallup first asked the question in 1958.

from just 4% (four fucking percent!) of Americans approving of interracial marriage to 94% in sixty years! clearly one of those opinions is wrong and it was nearly universally wrong and I claim that the people in that 4% were on the right side of history back in 1958 and whatever the motivations of everyone else for saying what they did and believing what they did they were wrong, obviously and tragically wrong.

I wonder how smug the 4% were about it though, hmm.

anyway the state passed various laws to enforce this near universal fucked up human preference and those laws were all bad and it is good that they were overturned.

look, this is an easy win! obvious legal discrimination is the most straightforward moral issue we have! time after time we tear down unfair barriers and get to smugly pat ourselves on the back about being more enlightened than our benighted ancestors and the world gets a little bit better and we can move on and stop talking about stupid shit like married women needing to quit their jobs or gay people being unable to have their marriages legally recognised or people having different rights and protections depending on who they are or who their parents were or where they were born, it's so simple to be on the right side of history! take the win!

in an American legal/political context (and also a British context, although they express it in a different way) there is the bedrock assumption that the individual is a sovereign in some sense, that while the government derives its authority and legitimacy from the consent of the community, its authority cannot override the rights of the individuals within that community (obviously a commitment that these governments fell woefully short of on countless occasions, but still an important legal principle).

but individuals outside that community may have no rights at all! the government may imprison or even murder them with impunity, and of course being outside the community they have no individual representation (yet still pay sales taxes lol) and are reliant on some other national government to try and defend them in a manner that's more reminiscent of the bargaining between feudal warlords than a post-enlightenment respect for the rights of man.

this form of elevation of government over the individual is a horrific anachronism that cannot be justified on moral or economic grounds and should have been left behind in the 20th century; I can scarcely believe it's even necessary to say this but "people should have the same rights and freedoms regardless of where they are born" remains a shockingly controversial claim.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A reflection on last week.  :::  April 10, 2023

Robert B. Hubbell

             Tonight, I offer a reflection on last week—and a suggestion about how we must respond. We went into last week expecting the news to be dominated by Trump's arraignment. It was—until the GOP-controlled legislature in Tennessee expelled two young Black Representatives for protesting briefly in the well of the assembly. We then received the report of Pro Publica outlining the manifest corruption of Justice Thomas by Texas millionaire and Hitler memorabilia collector Harlan Crow. And then Judge Kacsmaryk issued a thinly disguised religious fiat banning mifepristone for women across America.

         Each of the above events demonstrates the GOP’s efforts to achieve its goals by breaking the democracy that guarantees their liberties in the first instance. But we must now add to the sad litany a new item—Governor Greg Abbott’s pre-emptive announcement that he will pardon a Texas man convicted of murder after a jury trial. At trial, the defendant was able to present his argument that he acted in self-defense. The jury rejected that claim and voted unanimously to convict him of murder.

         Why does Abbott believe that he is justified in pardoning the murderer even before appeals have been heard? Abbott is, after all, substituting his judgment for that of the jurors who heard the evidence first-hand. Abbot believes the defendant is innocent of murder because he killed a “BLM” protester.

That’s right: Governor Abbott has established a new rule that laws do not apply equally to people protesting police killings and right-wing extremists who are upset by the protests. In a single act, Abbott has altered the law in Texas, demoted protestors demanding justice to second-class status, and told Texas jurors that their voices do not matter when MAGA extremists are on trial. In short, “self-defense” is a MAGA “get out of jail free” card under Greg Abbott’s reign in Texas.

         Together, these four instances illustrate a strategy the GOP learned from Trump: If the democratic system does not produce the result you want, then break democracy to obtain a different result. That is what the Tennessee legislators did to Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, that is what religious zealots did to all Americans, that is what monied interests did in bending the Supreme Court to do the bidding of the privileged and elite, and that is what Greg Abbott has done in summarily overturning a jury verdict that flies in the face of the facts.

         We have been confronting this asymmetry from the very moment Trump announced his bid in 2016, and it has worsened over time. As Democrats toil within the system to forge compromises over competing policies, Republicans break the system to get their way. They simply ignore it (McConnell on Merrick Garland’s nomination), they deny it (outcomes of elections), they falsify it (fake electors), they rig the judicial system to guarantee assignment of cases to a sympathetic federal judge (Kacsmaryk), and they attempt to stop its operation through violence (J6).

         There have been scattered calls for Democrats to employ similar tactics. Indeed, some are calling for the federal government to ignore Judge Kacsmaryk’s order if it is not stayed by the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court. To state the obvious, to do so would amount to “breaking democracy” simply because we don’t like the result. We must not give in to the temptation to adopt the GOP’s anti-democratic tactics. We must fight our battle of resistance from within the walls and ramparts of democracy if we have any hope of saving it.

         The truth is that the rule of law continues to exist in America today because one of America’s major political parties remains committed to upholding that rule—despite the efforts of the other party to destroy it. If both parties feel emboldened to ignore the rule of law, our democracy will be gone. All that will be left is a contest of brute force in which dark money will substitute for violence.

         I do not believe we will reach that point. I have faith that Democrats will do the right thing despite legitimate feelings of anger, hurt, and despair. In each of the four situations described above, there is a democratic path forward to correct the result. It will not be easy, and we may not succeed entirely. But so long as we have a path forward, we should not set aside our great charter and the laws that give it life. It has endured for more than two centuries during equally trying times; we can make it through the present challenges, as well.

+

[from comments]

Overall, MAGA Republicans are revealing who and what they are. During the mid-terms, Democrats pushed back against an anticipated red tsunami and vastly outperformed expectations. Perhaps the ongoing MAGA performances will convince even more voters to shut them down.

Jessica Craven's latest post in "Chop Wood, Carry Water," celebrates many recent victories. She also writes that the two Tennessee lawmakers who were expelled can run in the special elections for their seats, and if they win, they cannot be expelled again. As for the other ugly instances cited here, I can sympathize with the anguished plea, "what does it take?" that most of us uttered during the long years of the Trump regime. Read Jessica Craven's post from today to understand that there are reasons for optimism.

https://open.substack.com/pub/chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions/p/extra-extra-april-9th

We are being forged by fire to get as tough as our opponents and as clever. We already outnumber them. We are inspired by the courage of Ukrainians in their fight for their democracy and their lives. We are inspired by the heroes of our own Civil Rights movement that is ongoing. We are inspired by the turnout of the Israeli populace and even its military members that caused the Netanyahu regime to blink. We are being called upon to dig deep, stay tough and committed and resist even though we are tired.

Tomorrow is another day. Let's get on with the work.

[Gary S.]

[coochiequeens]

Maybe if Mrs Fitch wants women to “have it all” and not choose abortion for careers she should focus on passing paid maternity leave for American mothers.

In September 2021, Mississippi's chief legal officer sat down for an interview with Pro-Life Weekly, a Catholic television programme featuring anti-abortion activists. 

Lynn Fitch looked how she almost always does during public appearances: dyed-blonde hair blow-dried straight and neat, tasteful jewellery and a monochrome suit, this time in powder blue. 

The attorney general was there to celebrate. The United States Supreme Court had just announced the date it would hear her state's challenge to Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that has, for the nearly 50 years since, served as a nationwide guarantee to abortion access. 

The case, Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, centres on a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, even in cases of rape or incest. Under Ms Fitch's direction, the state asked the Supreme Court to uphold the law and slash the landmark Roe v Wade decision in the process. A ruling is expected this month. A leaked draft suggests it is likely that Mississippi's ban will be upheld, paving the way for other states to also outlaw abortion.

Ms Fitch - who declined to be interviewed - had argued that overturning Roe v Wade would be "game-changing", "uplifting" women by eliminating what she described as a false choice between family and career.

"Fifty years ago, for professional women, they wanted you to make a choice. Now you don't have to," she said on Pro-Life Weekly. "You have the option in life to really achieve your dreams, your goals, and you can have those beautiful children as well."

If she wins the case, and Roe v Wade falls, some 40 million women may lose access to abortion, pro-choice advocates warn. It could also make Ms Fitch, a single working parent of three, a Republican superstar and poster-child for her own argument: modern women don't need abortion to have it all.

Abortion was not always an animating theme of Ms Fitch's political career. When she first took public office, as Mississippi state treasurer in 2011, she pushed for legislation that would guarantee men and women were paid equally.

Her convictions were shaped in many ways by her upbringing, and especially her experiences as a single mother, says Hayes Dent, a long-time friend and colleague, who ran her first political campaign.

When Mr Dent first met Ms Fitch, she had just been named executive director of the Mississippi State Personnel Board, a state agency, by then-governor Haley Barbour. Mr Dent was immediately impressed.

"Having been around every major political figure in Mississippi for 40 years, I could just tell: she's going to run," Mr Dent said. "And when she pulls that trigger, she's going to be successful." 

It wasn't for another couple of years that she did, launching a campaign for state treasurer. 

Whens he launched her first political campaign, for state treasurer in 2011, "she was an underdog," said Austin Barbour, a national GOP strategist (no relation to former Governor Barbour). 

Mr Dent, who had kept tabs on Ms Fitch, reached out to her in the middle of that 2011 cycle and asked to come on board her campaign.

"I said 'Look, I think you can win this race,'" he recalled. 

She accepted, and the two ran an ambitious campaign, even driving the length of the state in a day, making a handful of different stops and placing fundraiser calls in the hours between. 

"Her attitude was 'what is the task at hand,'" Mr Dent said. "It'd be like 'Look, we've gotta go to the tobacco spitting festival.' And she'd do great! She wouldn't spit tobacco, but she was great."

The only reason Ms Fitch would turn down a campaign event was her kids, cutting out early to make a school basketball game or parent-teacher conference. 

She was a natural campaigner, but fundraising lagged, so Mr Dent asked her father for a personal donation. 

Bill Fitch still lived in Holly Springs, the small, rural town near the state's northern edge where Ms Fitch spent most of her childhood. 

Her father had inherited land on the historic Galena Plantation and used the sprawling 8,000-acre property to restore the family farm, turning it into a premier quail hunting destination. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Mississippi governors Barbour and Phil Bryant, became frequent guests. 

Visitors of Fitch Farms could elect to stay in the former home of Confederate general and first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Nathan Bedford Forrest, which Mr Fitch had bought and transported onto the property. 

Ms Fitch has told local media of "special" childhood memories at her father's farm, riding horses and hunting quail. 

As a teenager, she was the "prototypical popular girl", Mr Dent said. "Leader, cheerleader, athletic, the whole nine yards," he said. 

She went to the University of Mississippi, joined a sorority and graduated with a degree in business administration and later in law. 

When Mr Dent drove to her father's farm to make his pitch for a campaign donation, he said: "I told him if I left there with a big cheque, she was going to win". 

She won, and then won again four years later, securing a second term as state treasurer. 

In this office, she targeted state debt, expanded access to financial education in the state, and advocated for equal pay laws (Mississippi remains the only state that does not ensure equal pay for equal work between men and women). 

Rifts split America's abortion 'ground zero' state

US Democrats' bid for federal abortion law fails

And she developed her knack for connecting to voters, leaning on both her Holly Springs upbringing and an apparent ease in the public eye. 

In interviews and campaign videos, Ms Fitch looks preternaturally poised. She makes easy eye contact, her speech slow and relaxed, often thanking God and her family for the opportunity to serve her state.

"Rural roots matter to voters in this state," said Mr Barbour, the Republican strategist. "And she's very likeable, she just is." 

Ms Fitch also helped bolster her conservative credentials with her support for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, leading Mississippi's Women for Trump coalition in 2016. When Mr Trump was in Jackson for a campaign rally, she sat in the front row. 

Two years later, Ms Fitch announced she would make a bid for Mississippi Attorney General - an office that had never been held by a woman.

But she wasn't the underdog, and glided to victory in November 2019 with nearly 60% of the vote on a promise to uphold "conservative values and principles".

As a devoted Republican in a solidly Republican state, where Ms Fitch stood on abortion was taken as given, even if she didn't run on it. 

Across the country, about 60% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to data from the Pew Research Centre. But among Mississippi Republicans, nearly 70% believe abortion should illegal in all or most cases. 

"You don't run in Mississippi, you don't run in rural conservative states and not want to see Roe v Wade overturned," said Mr Barbour, the Republican strategist. "It's just ingrained". 

The abortion ban before the Supreme Court was passed by Mississippi's state legislature in 2018, two years before Ms Fitch took office as Attorney General. The law, which bans abortions outright after 15 weeks, was immediately challenged in court on behalf of Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's last abortion clinic. 

A federal district court struck down the ban, saying it was unconstitutional, and that was upheld by a higher court in 2019. 

But in June 2020, five months into the job, Attorney General Fitch petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the 15-week ban. The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, accepted and heard the case in December of last year. 

Now, she's known nationally as the lawyer expected to topple Roe v Wade. 

At times, Ms Fitch has said her state is merely making an argument for the rule of law: asking the Supreme Court to turn over abortion policymaking to the states. But more often, she says the case is about women's empowerment. 

Roe v Wade, she has said, made women believe they had to pick: family or career, not both. 

"The court in Roe pitted women against our children, and woman against woman," she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. 

The choice is misleading and paternalistic, argued Ms Fitch. It's an position seemingly drawn from her own life: a single mother who has ascended to the highest levels of state office, while remaining devoted to her children and grandchildren. 

"Being a single mom has sort of dominated her thought process, and her life experience," Mr Dent said. "I think that's one of the reasons she feels so strongly about this". 

In a world without Roe v Wade, Ms Fitch said during a television interview last year, "babies will be saved" and mothers "get a chance to really redirect their lives. They have all these new and different opportunities that they didn't have 50 years ago".

Pro-choice activists have accused Ms Fitch of using feminist language to cover over an inherently anti-feminist policy.

Her arguments lean "heavily into false claims that they are 'empowering women'", said Dina Montemarano, research director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. This tactic, Ms Montemarano said, is often used by anti-abortion activists to assert control over women's bodies and violate their fundamental freedoms. 

In an opening brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Ms Fitch wrote of "sweeping policy advancements [which] now promote women's full pursuit of both career and family". 

But in a counter-argument submitted to the Supreme Court, 154 economists warned in a brief that this optimism was "premature and false". 

"Mississippi's celebration of parental leave policies is particularly bizarre, as the United States is one of only two countries without a national paid maternity leave policy," the economists wrote. 

Mississippi, specifically, has no state laws mandating paid family leave. It is the poorest state in the nation and has the highest rates of both infant mortalityand child poverty.

But if Roe is indeed thrown out, Ms Fitch will return to Mississippi a conservative hero. 

"I'm 99% sure she will run for attorney general again," Mr Dent said. "And based on how the last three years have gone, it's hard for me to imagine she'll have any Republican opposition this time". 

There are also early rumblings that she may one day run for governor. She has not yet commented on this speculation. 

If she wins, Ms Fitch would be the first female governor in Mississippi's history.

[elliepassmore]

Children of Blood and Bone review

4.5/5 stars Recommended for people who like: magic, fantasy, non-Western fantasy, multiple POVs, A Song of Wraiths and Ruins I really liked the worldbuilding and thought the world was very vibrant. I liked that the story took us to multiple different places so we got to see a wide range of Orïsha's environments and people. Adeyemi did a good job of incorporating maji/diviners-kosidan relationships into each location so that they felt realistic. One town might have a mix of both where the maji/diviners get shaken down by the guards in a 'normal' way while the next might be brutal for the maji/diviners, and yet another might treat them as relative equals. The way the guards treated the maji/diviners was also realistic, unfortunately, and you can definitely see the influences of real-world laws and actions in the ones present in Orïsha. The magic system overall makes sense and I don't think it needs a ton of explaining: diviners as baby!maji who will get their powers from one of the gods/esses at age 13, the magic is usually passed through the maternal line so kids tend to have the same kind of magic as the mom's, and there are chants/prayers/incantations to the gods that allow the magic to flow. Simple enough. However, the incantations end up getting a bit tricky later on in the book. For one, we pretty much always see Zelie using incantations when she calls her magic, but some of the other magic-using characters are never mentioned as using incantations. While some of them, like Zélie, probably remember a few from before the Raid, that can't be true for all of them, especially ones who are too young or who get a power that doesn't correspond with one their parent had. So that bit felt a little rushed, but overall I liked the magic system in the book and Zélie's way of describing magic was interesting. As for Zélie herself: she's got a fire in her and she's determined to get things done, even if she sometimes doubts her abilities to lead. She balances herself quite well between being afraid of the guards and retaliation and rebellion, and generally seems to keep a good balance, though I do have to agree with Tzain that sometimes she does stuff without thinking. I particularly liked how much joy she took from her diviner/maji heritage and her awareness that simply living her heritage was rebellion within itself. There was a bit toward the end where she was getting doubtful about magic which was kind of confusing since she'd also used magic to fight and for more debatable reasons, but whatever. Overall I liked her character. With Amari I was kind of lost at first as to how people could call her a badass, but I definitely get it now. I'll will admit that I didn't and still don't see how she and Zelie are such great friends. Friends, definitely. But best friends? I don't think they're there yet. Something I definitely appreciate about Amari was how willing she was to learn. Some of the things she came into contact with once outside the palace scared her, but she was open to explanations and other perspectives, which was great considering her upbringing (and considering Inan's chapters). I feel like Amari really came into herself in the second half of the book. She finally gets a chance to fight for something she believes in and I think it helped transform her character from someone who shied away from the blade she knew how to use to someone who would wield a sword to defend herself and others. I could definitely see her becoming a commander of some kind in the future, though I'm not entirely sure if 'queen' suits her (I am not entirely certain the title 'ruler' suits anyone in this book). Inan is the last POV character and he was...he was a lot. Amari and Zelie are definitely my favorites, but Inan is someone I could probably do with having less page time. This boy has zero convictions of his own and is completely unable to look past his nose. Unlike Amari, he continues to believe his father's words even traveling around and doesn't really spare a second thought to how reality might actually be. The one thing I'll say in his defense is that Amari did have Binta growing up and was able to see that at least one diviner wasn't bad, which I do think helped for her to generalize this idea to other diviners/maji, whereas Inan didn't have a figure like that in his life. But enough of that. Inan is wishy-washy and swings one way then the other (though never completely all the way), and he is far too willing to return to his old ideals when things get challenging or scary. I mean, for fuck's sake he isn't even really the one suffering most of these times and is still all too ready to give up. Like, please grow a spine, buddy. I do think Adeyemi actually did a really good job of writing Inan in the sense that she manages to capture the effects abuse and gaslighting and show just how much of an effect those things can have on your psyche. So in that sense Inan was a 'good' character, but I don't think he's a good person nor do I like him. Tzain was someone whom I felt was in the background for a lot of the book. He supports Zelie and is willing to go off with her to do all these things and protects her and stands by her even when she fucks up. He is also able to be nice to Amari despite her being the princess and the daughter of the man who caused a lot of his problems. From what we do see of him Tzain seems to have a good sense of humor and is funny at times. He's also clearly holding in a lot of pain, trauma, and responsibility, though he rarely shows it. I definitely think he feels responsible for his father and Zelie and that whenever something bad happens to either of them he feels guilty, even if there was nothing he could've done. While he blames Zélie for a lot of things, which I don't like AT ALL but at the same time understand needing to direct your anger somewhere, I get the feeling he's mostly blaming himself. In terms of relationships. Someone please explain to me why there needed to be any in this book in the first place? Inan and Zélie are the main pairing, which is just dumb af since he wants to kill her for almost the entirety of the book then, after like two whole days of being together, they decide everything's fine and dandy and start kissing. I side with Tzain on this one, even if his phrasing wasn't great. I'll be honest, the Zélie and Inan's whole relationship just confuses me. I don't understand why they like each other other than 'insta-love' and I don't understand 1) why Zélie's willing to Risk It All after Inan being nice for two days, and 2) why she's willing to continue the relationship after what happens with Saran. Perhaps my biggest issue with them is Inan's so-called love wherein he thinks taking away magic will protect Zélie...completely ignoring the fact that part of Zélie is magic. *SPOILER, SKIP TO NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID* That complete and utter dumbass doesn't seem to connect the fact that he stopped feeling Zélie's soul when Zélie stopped feeling magic. Like? Brains? No brains here. *SPOILER END* Okay, moving on. Tzain and Amari have better prospects for romance. Adeyemi set them up from the very beginning, even if Tzain might've initially seen her as a pretty face. They grow to like and respect for one another and I feel like their relationship could actually go somewhere. But why, why oh why does Adeyemi make Amari mention the L-word? Like, honey, you are not in love with this boy after only knowing him a week. Crush, sure. Love, no. But that matters not, since there is at least the potential. Actually, something re: relationships that I felt Adeyemi kind of brushed over (and it seems like other reviews also had this same thought) has to do with Amari. She is very much coded to be bi and it's written as if she and Binta had a romantic relationship, but Adeyemi never follows through with this. I honestly thought that Amari and Zelie were going to be the main pairing of the book at first, or failing that that Amari would have feelings for Zélie, Zélie wouldn't reciprocate, then Amari would move on to another female character. But nope. Nada. I mean, Tzain's good too, but it's just weird the way the whole thing with Amari's romantic interest(s) was/were written. Now onto something else: the throne. While becoming the next ruler isn't an outright object for either Inan or Amari (or anyone else), being heir definitely sits on Inan's shoulders and drives a lot of what he does. Likewise, Amari comes to the realization that if she were the next on the throne she could help the diviners/maji and overturn the laws and the system that her father created. The current king, Saran, sucks all around and definitely doesn't deserve his head being attached to his body. But we already knew that. The point is, Inan is clearly not good for Orïsha because he can't form his own convictions and leans solely on what he's been taught to think is right. He does, however, think he is the only person who can keep Orïsha safe and protected. Amari, on the other hand, knows she won't be queen and doesn't seem to really want to be queen until she realized what that could mean for what she believes in. However, and there's always a 'however,' she also kind of has Mad Queen Energy about her at times after she makes this decision. She is, in my opinion, also not a great contender for the throne. As mentioned, I think she'd make a great general, but there's something about her that makes me hesitate before supporting her bid for the throne. Do I think she'd be better than Saran or Inan? Absolutely. But probably so would Yemi, that doesn't mean she should get the throne. Perhaps I am merely feeling particularly democratic today, but I don't believe an absolute monarch will help Orïsha. If we are being realistic, I don't even know if a democratic one would either, but power in the hands of a diverse many would probably be better than power in the hands of one. Overall I enjoyed the story. I thought the plot was good and I enjoyed going with the characters as they (mostly) struggled to get magic back. Inan served to be a good character for demonstrating how our childhood can influence the kind of people we become and also serves as a nice foil to Amari, who has decided to be the opposite of her brother. Zélie is a good character to follow since she's so alive. She's got so much rage and love and fear and fire that pushes her every step of the way and helps her overcome so many things. I knocked off half a star for the frivolous reason that I don't like Inan and Zélie's romance and don't think it was necessary for the book. I'll be honest, the book was great, it was tough for me to put down even when I needed to, but for some reason I just don't have any desire to find out what happens in the next one. It's a bit like A Song of Wraiths and Ruin like that for me. I just...don't feel it. I don't think it has anything to do with either book since I couldn't make myself finish reading a new book by one of my favorite authors even though I was enjoying it so...just that kind of year, I suppose.

[beauty-grace-outer-space]

Alright, kids. You know what to do. 

Here’s the link with information on how to contact all the US Senators, and below is a letter I drafted this morning. Feel free to use it or to write your own insisting that they not only impeach, but convict. We need 15 Republican Senators to vote to convict to prevent Trump from ever running for President again. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator, 

I am writing in regards to the impeachment proceedings set forth by Congress regarding Donald Trump’s incitement to insurrection at the Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. 

The entire nation watched in horror as the mob of terrorists, spurred forward by the charge of Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Mo Brooks, and most notably the president himself to “fight like hell” and “take back [the] country, including the clear instruction to march on the Capitol and aggressively intimidate Members of Congress to bow before his will to overturn the election in the eleventh hour.

For weeks, if not months, experts have warned against Trump’s behavior and rhetoric, and what happened at the Capitol was the realization of many of our worst fears: a coup attempt by a petulant hatemonger desperate for the spotlight and consequences be damned. Sadly these warnings were mocked or dismissed outright, despite best efforts, and in spite of rising cause for alarm as Trump continued insisting wrongfully that he had in some way won the election, that the “left” had “stolen” it, and that his base of followers must be ready to “stop the steal” and “take back [their] country”. 

We watched appalled as he wrongfully insisted on election night that he had won. We watched in the weeks following as he continued to insist on widespread fraud (of which there has been no substantiated evidence) and accuse democrats of shady and nefarious dealings, even as he himself called election officials and state representatives and tried to convince them to “find” the votes he needed. 

Trump’s attempts at undermining our democracy have steadily increased over the past several years, and it has culminated now in this terrorist attack on the Capitol itself. As you know, senator, members of the mob that laid siege to Congress came prepared to inflict far worse damage than what they were able to achieve, armed with weapons, chemicals, flex cuffs-- indicative of their intent to take hostages--, and even erecting a gallows as they chanted “hang Mike Pence”, an action surely instigated by the president’s repeated claims that the Vice President “hadn’t come through” for him and didn’t “have the courage” to do as Trump demanded just hours before. 

Thankfully, they were unable to access or harm any members of Congress, even with a Member of Congress, Rep. Boebert -- a known member of the far-right conspiracy theorist group QAnon-- tweeted out the Speaker of the House’s location two minutes after the Capitol was breached. 

As you know, at least one police officer lost his life at the hand of these terrorists, and several members of the mob were killed during their participation.  

As the timeline of events becomes more clear, so too does the president’s culpability. His endless rhetoric of lies about the outcome of the election, his calls for the Proud Boys-- a known hate group-- to “stand back and stand by”, his speech on the day of the riot, and even his actions during and afterward (refusing to call in the National Guard, telling the terrorists that he “loves them” and they’re “very special”, etc.) have made it clear that not only is he unfit for the office of President of the United States, but that he actively incited insurrection against those very United States. 

As such, senator, we the people find that you must vote to convict him and prevent him from ever running for said office again. The world is watching; those who stand aside with calls for “unity” instead of consequences for this sedition will be remembered as equally culpable in these events. As a famous man once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” 

I call upon you to remember your oath to the United States, and to do what is right. 

Convict, and prevent this traitor from ever holding office again. 

Thank you,  

A concerned citizen.

[ceaselessblade]

⚔️️!!

Marth. Ike’s seen him, fought him a little, and quite frankly, he’s impressed.  The prince is clearly faster than him, swifter and more agile. That’s not how he can fight him, but he must, at the very least, keep up with him. For that reason, Ike will at the very least try to match him in speed, because it’d be a disservice to himself to not hone himself in a key facet of the sword. He has no illusions that the only reason he was able to block the Black Knight’s strikes in the tower was absolutely due to his frequent sparring with Mia, a sword partner with a speed that exceeded his own.  Ike... Would likely not prefer Ragnell or Ettard for such a confrontation as a result-- he might prefer a slimmer claymore, or the regal sword. That said, he might just decide to use Ragnell anyway, because he needs the experience while using a heavier blade against a swifter one.  For combat approach, since he’s fighting on equal terms, the same swordfighting basics apply: Target vulnerable areas-- the fingers, usually, injure footwork, or major arteries. Obviously, he can’t actually strike these areas, so the best he can do is mock-threaten them or stop before inflicting the wound.  His advantage against Marth is very clearly-- reach. He simply has more room to maneuver than Marth does, which means that he has a wider angle to attack from and test him with. This is where he suspects Marth might not have as much experience as Lucina-- Marth’s dancing blade is slippery and deadly in equal measure, but he isn’t as skilled in defending from all angles as Lucina is, since he doesn’t appear to have fought in sparse guerilla-warfare much. Marth’s offense is deceptively strong. Ike can only try to deflect, and can’t contest it because he has suspicions that particular thrust would probably break just about anyone’s guard. Be on guard or light on foot at all times, because Ike has absolutely no illusions that the prince will slip in several hits somehow by piercing his own defense. Ike will have to expect taking some hits-- Marth is simply too fast. During exchanges where he’s going to lose-- Ike has to assure equal offense, because if he takes a chunk out of Marth while Marth takes a chunk out of him, he suspects that Marth will actually lose the exchange through attrition. Of course-- that also assumes that he’s not taking two hits for a single one of his own.  Marth’s footwork and stance requires him to be somewhat stable on at least his feet. Even if he does lean lower for quick maneuvers, his general stance puts his torso at a level height, which means that Ike can try to target Marth’s sides or core. If he manages to slip through and land an upward gut punch or fillet a strong cut to the waist, he could probably damage Marth’s form, making for an easier followup since the prince would be less able to exert his offensive pressure. It might be worth taking a deliberate hit just to damage Marth in that situation. 

All in all, Marth is a formidable opponent. He is seasoned-- but perhaps not entirely so, but already he is well-equipped to fell behemoths with his swordwork. Likely, he already has. Ike fully expects to lose a spar or two to him at some point or other-- Marth’s conviction and blade style exude that kind of explosive power, as if they could overturn heaven and earth! Now, what would the Prince need that power for, however... Ike isn’t sure of. Goddess knows his mere personality is already enough to unite nations.

[itsyourchoicedevotionals]

Will We Speak?

“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?” Proverbs 24:11-12NIV

This post is long, but bear with me. It’s extremely important. Are you awake to what the House of Representatives enacted? And now what the Senators are supposed to comply and approve, enacting into law for this land? Do you understand HR-5? (Check out Dutch Sheets Give Him 15: An Appeal To Heaven on Facebook.)

The Civil Rights Bill became law in 1964. Two people groups were greatly affected— all races became equal and women were finally elevated to equality with men in employment, and having restroom facilities.

HR-5 will forever change the definition of men and women within the Civil Rights law. Racial ethnicity, and men and women will totally lose their identities. The new ‘transgender’ will be preferred over the biological sex or color. Everyone will bow to the rule of this group, from pastor to president, to teacher, to parent. Are you ready for that?

Schools will be teaching social dysphoria of a person’s born sex designation. I remember when, at eleven years, the menstrual cycle hit my body with shocking waves of pain. Why couldn’t I be a man? In reality, I wasn’t old enough nor wise enough to make such a decision. After being a woman all my life, I’m happy sex change wasn’t available. But what if my ridiculous desire at eleven was granted? Horrors!

“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act.” Proverbs 3:27NIV Action must be taken to stop women from losing their rights to privacy in the restrooms and locker rooms. I can remember going to church where we had one outdoor toilet, shared with men. For life, I find the port-a-potty the most disgusting of all. We’d be digressing in society by having open doors and no privacy. Sharing locker rooms with a transgender, God forbid.

Never sports oriented, my understanding is limited. But I know disappointment and can’t imagine the disappointment of some girl who’s worked hard to receive a trophy, only to lose it to a boy posing to be a girl. Hormones won’t change muscular strength. It’s in our power to stop this.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,” 1Timothy 2:1-3ESV Pray. PRAY! PRAY! Lift up the Senators to Jesus, asking for love and conviction to overwhelm their hearts. Bind the god of this world who’s blinding the minds in the government and Senate with darkness, see 2Corinthians 4:4.

God is allowing His Son’s bride to act like her beloved Bridegroom, exercising His Word and authority in prayer and actions. “It was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints” Revelation 19:8ESV.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,” 2Corinthians 10:3-5ESV. We must pull down these strongholds, cast down these evil imaginations which sets themselves against God, through prayer and authority.

Christians around the world are suffering for being Christians. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” Matthew 11:12ESV. We’re next on the list to suffer, unless we stand up. Although we’re to be harmless as doves— we’re to wise as serpents. Harmless to the Senators, being snakes striking suddenly, and surprisingly all the evil forces, and making our will known.

“Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches…” Matthew 21:12NIV. Our King went in and upset status quo. As our example, we must upset the Senators with emails, and phone calls. They must KNOW, we’re seriously watching and evaluating their every move. This bill, if enacted, will have serious repercussions to their political futures.

Remember sometimes God doesn’t move until we show how much we care about the subject. We allowed abortion with silence. 65 million murdered children later, we regret silence. They took God out of schools and our parents sat by praying but not saying anything. What if they’d held the Supreme Court accountable?

Will we speak? Will we contact our Senators who hold the future of this nation in their hands? There is still time to make our voices heard. Call the US Senate at 202-224-3121. For full information go to childparentrights.org. Or will, with your inaction, we stand before the Righteous Judge with blood on our hands? It’s your choice. You choose.

PRAYER: Lord God help us to stand in Your authority and power, tearing down the enemies strongholds spiritually and physically, in the name of Jesus Christ I pray.

by Debbie Veilleux Copyright 2021 You have my permission to reblog this devotional for others. Please keep my name with this devotional as author. Thank you.

[omfgtrump]

Hollywood Does What Senate Won’t: Gives Don The Boot!

With his impeachment trial beginning and the possibility of conviction a near impossibility, we turn to the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Sag-AFTRA, for inspiration and a moral compass.

The union voted “overwhelmingly” to find probable cause that Trump had violated SAG-AFTRA’s constitution in inciting the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and “sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of journalists, many of whom are SAG-AFTRA members.” 

On the other hand, the Republican party, who gave a standing ovation to Q lady, Marjorie Taylor Greene, has already decided that inciting an attack on the U.S. Capitol and to quote Sag-AFTRA, “sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of journalists” as well as the Capitol police, members of Congress and the vice president, does not rise to the level of a conviction and being barred from running for public office again.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-gun-facebook-squad

In fact, with such overwhelming evidence against him, The Don’s lawyers won’t even try to argue the facts: their defense will be to claim the proceeding itself is constitutionally illegitimate. A defense ready made by the 45 Republican senators who voted to derail the trial before it started.

It will come down to what I call the Sargent Schultz (of Hogan’s Heroes fame) defense: “I see nothing, I know nothing” and for good measure, I am not even here. In other words, regardless of what you witnessed, it doesn’t matter, because there is no basis for a trial. Since the trial shouldn’t exist, you can’t vote to convict because that would be an acknowledgement of the fact that there was a right to have a trial. Feels a bit Kafkaesque.

Once again, we are confronted with the stark reality that the Republican party is willing to risk the very democracy it is charged to defend and abandon all its principles, to pledge its allegiance to The Don.

But not SAG-AFTRA

The Don, true to form, seeing the handwriting on the wall, beat them to the chase. Resigning before they call to say: “You’re fired,”

 Below is his resignation later. I reprinted it in full because it such classic Don.

Ms. Carteris:

 I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares! While I’m not familiar with your work, I’m very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice – to name just a few!

 I’ve also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics) and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others.

Which brings me to your blatant attempt at free media attention to distract from your dismal record as a union. Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me – besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas – as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors,

Who even recorded a video asking, “Why isn’t the union fighting for me?”

These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious. I no longer wish to be associated with your union.

 As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resignation from SAG-AFTRA. You have done nothing for me. Regards, President Donald J. Trump

SAG-AFTRA’s response was a simple “Thank you.” 

I appreciate the elegance, the high mindedness and the desire not to engage and breath oxygen into the situation.

But here would be my response.

Dear Mr. Trump,

First let’s set the record straight on a few things. What you did in those movies is not called work: It is called a cameo. And even though you are no longer a member, we feel it is our patriotic duty to due justice to your presidency. At present, there are numerous projects being explored. Too bad we won’t be able to consult you or even cast you, but we promise that we will create compelling, dramatic and riveting entertainment. Exactly what you would want.

Here are a just a few that are being considered by two new production companies: Orange Rot Productions and Golden Showers Productions.

Vlad and Me: A buddy picture for the ages. The plot revolves around a president of the U.S. sharing secret information for love. For any old movie fans, there is one scene of Vlad and a certain orange haired president that equals the steaminess of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr on the beach in “From Here to Eternity.” Purportedly, its climax has a golden shower.

The Insurrectionist: a deep dive into the coordinated attempt between White Supremacy Groups and people in government to overturn an election. The opening scene is one of the scariest things ever produced. Take a seat Chucky. The scene opens with a mob storming the Capitol. The camera zooms in on crazed man taking a fire hydrant and smashing it over a police officer’s head. The camera then zooms in on an orange haired man in the oval office watching TV yelling: “Did you see that shit? That’s better than any WWF thing I’ve ever seen. Do these people love me or what?” The phone is ringing. Aides are trying to get the president’s attention to no avail. “Tell them I’m not in. Look at this shit, isn’t it just amazing.”

From Riches To Rags: This film follows the ruinous descent of a president of the United States as he loses all his friends, money, the debtors who want their due and ultimately is imprisoned. Rumor has it that some of the jail scenes at the end are quite chilling.

Let’s hope that with the current president doing the work of the president and not just making cameos, we will emerge from this nightmare and once again be able to say: “How about we go to a movie?”

Regards,

Disciplinary Board of SAG-AFTRA

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2NdmDn5 via IFTTT