#in order to keep voting rights ''faithful to the constitution''

[gayarograce]

Man fuck SCOTUS. "Checks and balances" my ass! They barely have shit keeping them in check

[anthonybialy]

Trainee Presidents

Learn by the next shift that the pan is hot.  This is a popular time for scorched fingers.  America’s endured first-day idiocy for an entire term from a branch that should’ve had some idea how to run things when they started.  It’s tough for liberals to claim they’re openminded when they make the same mistakes constantly.  If you think smoking’s a tough bad habit to break, you should try no longer thinking executive orders lower prices.

There’s always some catch.  Why can’t money be worth the same no matter how many checks the Treasury sends for idling?  Similarly, Joe Biden fans claiming he’s experienced neglect how all that time has been spend doing nothing.  Someone born when World War II’s result remained in doubt has accumulated as much useful information as a rotten head of lettuce.  It costs 37 dollars.

There’s no practical application even if you risibly make the case that he’s accumulated a great deal of wisdom in what’s a ninth decade.  A clueless head of state has spent his life inflicting his unwillingness to heed useful lessons on everyone else.  Professional airhead Kamala Harris would keep making the same daily mistakes as the confetti-brained geezer, so continuity can be overrated. 

You’d figure mean corporate titans would want potential customers to have all the free funds they’d like.  Giving away money only makes us poorer if drinking martinis makes boozehounds thirsty.  We simply can’t print it fast enough.  Government is incapable of not meeting all our desires, so corporate greed must be to blame for how nobody can afford to drive to spend what used to be a rent payment on paper towels.  Their disdain for value is based in useful people gaining a couple bucks.

You selfishly refuse to have more taken from you.  It’s like you don’t ever want to be rich.  Getting someone else to offer payment sounds like a scam, so stay home and wait for your share.

More debt is always the answer regardless of the question.  Anyone who thinks governmental spending spurs good value can’t be enjoying a term where they’re getting every last thing they want.  At least they know how everyone else feels.  It’s cruel to not seize fortunes to be squandered by doltish vote-buying grifters.  America is on the dole.

Doing anything possible to not punish criminals reflects a steadfast commitment to injustice.  Principles are not automatically laudable.  An ideology committed to ducking personal responsibility naturally embraces felons.  Disappearing wallets can’t really surprise them.

It’s the item’s fault.  Villainizing implements offers a nice break from demonizing success.  Gun control will be effective once they’re able to break enchantment.  Biden White House witches serving as Voldemort’s proxies would ask J.K. Rowling for advice on how to destroy horcruxes, but they despise her guts for noting men cannot change into women with a magic spell.

Legalistic twits know why things are prohibited, namely because they’re written down.  One particular party enjoys pretending they can warp reality to their will by wording foolish bills in just the right way.  Their baffling excursions into control are not just defying the Constitution but more importantly what’s sensible about it.  Pondering just why these rules are in place is incomprehensible for those who think something is right because it’s enacted.

Smirking liberals mock religion to overcompensate for how their faith is never rewarded.  That’s what you get for believing daft dreck.  Federal zealots think a command to grant everyone insurance just took a law.  Nice health is simply a matter of politicians being brave enough to stand up to greed.  The same ones who break every constitutional aspect they can find believe adding restrictions will save us.

Democrats bizarrely want everyone coming to a country they think oppresses indigent minorities.  Come to this country illegally to show contempt for it while contributing less than nothing to respect it.

Math creates endless struggles for a faction that can’t add prices.  Every crime committed by an illegal immigrant as at minimum the second.  It’s apparently difficult to grasp how country crashers aren’t invited in the first place.  There’s deliberate confusion when evaders are classified as undocumented as if there were just some honest paperwork mishap in winning a game of border tag.

The world can only dole out so many examples.  Debt prevents endless entitlements, eventually.  A pending deadbeat meltdown still might not be enough for a president who’s been in politics for longer than most humans have been alive to grasp that mooching doesn’t make most people wealthy even though it worked for him.  Harris’s best case for Biden’s second term is that she’s just as dim.

The fill-in incumbent can’t stop setting bad examples.  Harris is continuing the tradition of spending and entire life in government only to never realize it sucks.  A little time in an industry that doesn’t involve swindling a percentage would’ve exposed Democratic contenders to productivity.  But any marginally cognizant human shouldn’t need outside experience to unearth how everyone else functions.

Harris is trying to catch up, sadly.  Biden lacks in empathy and every other worthwhile sense.  The disturbing lack of humanity began long before the traditional aging slide.  The president’s not allowed on the swings.

Reviewing what the oldest president ever needs to be taught would be insulting to a kindergartener of average intelligence.  There’s no real way to get stuff for free?  Well, that’s sad but good to know before first grade.

A 59-year-old substitute just needs more time.  Harris is continuing the legacy of maintaining ignorance.  Fretting about Biden’s rather high quantity of birthdays as he still wanders around his government-provided housing disregards how he knew precisely nothing half a century ago.  The biggest concern about his advanced age is never learning that his toxic notions poison.  Harris only trails by accident of birth year.  The technical president and the de facto replacement have always been steaming morons who’ve never improved, which is why the country isn’t, either.  

[girlgenius1111]

I hope you do not find this invasive, but as someone observing the American election from afar, I am wondering about your perspective.

I remember you posting months ago that you wouldn’t be voting in the election because your state is basically guaranteed to go Democrat, and you could not in good faith vote for Biden because of the Israel-Gaza situation — something I feel many young voters agreed with. However, since Biden has announced his is not running, and it’s now the Harris/Walz ticket, has your perspective changed? Do you think you’ll vote in November?

hiii! i love talking about politics honestly, not invasive (for me) at all!

that is how i felt, but now i can say confidently that im voting for harris in november. a lot of things contributed to my change in decision.

replacing biden with harris shows that the dem party is willing to listen to voters. harris more than biden, for sure, has changed her opinion and stance on things over the last few months, and over her career as an elected official, and i think that’s a good thing.

obviously, harris’ stance on israel’s war in palestine isn’t vastly different to biden’s, but i also think that it could change after she’s in office. i’ve heard a lot of people say that trump won’t be worse than harris for the palestinian people, and i just don’t think that’s true. it can get worse. israel’s government is toeing a very precarious line right now, and although the us hasn’t put its foot down, the threat that it will has limited israel’s ability to commit war crimes in palestine. i think trump’s instability would give netanyahu the feeling that he can do whatever he wants, and any restraint he’s showing (which isn’t much) will be gone.

more than all that though, it doesn’t make sense not to vote. 18-25 year olds historically do not vote, and this is why their demands aren’t taken seriously: they don’t hold much weight in an election. in order for young people’s opinions to matter to elected officials, they have to make them matter. harris isn’t going to listen to a bunch of people that didn’t vote for her. trump isn’t going to listen to anyone.

the best tool we have is voting. it doesn’t feel like it’s enough, and it’s not enough, and it sucks, but i think we owe it to every trans person, every immigrant, every minority and every group that the trump administration will target without restraint if he wins, to make sure that doesn’t happen. if trump wins, he has no intention of ever not being president for the rest of his life, and the instability that would bring to the entire planet is terrifying.

i can’t stop the us from funding israel’s war crimes right now. but i can make sure that the next president in office won’t destroy the constitution and plunge the country into authoritarianism.

i wish every election didn’t feel like democracy was on the line, but the only way out of that is to keep voting. not voting because we aren’t happy with the way the government is functioning is pointless. in order for change to occur, we have to make our voices carry weight.

anyway those are my feelings!

[noctomania]

I want you to understand the cause and effect of what has led to what is going on in texas at least re: abortion laws.

First off let me clarify: Roe v Wade was not law...yet. When you see a ___ v ___, that is an opinion. Not in the sense you may think. It's an opinion decided through litigation which means it's a powerful opinion that has been hammered out through the judicial process of a lawsuit being drawn up, and worked out in court. It could be a local, state, or federal court. Typically the ones that are most significant are federal, or ones that have come before the US Supreme Court - either because it is the federal government that is being challenged, the defendant petitions to move it to federal, or that the case has been elevated through appeals.

There are particular circumstances that determine if a case can go federal level:

"Federal court jurisdiction, by contrast, is limited to the types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress. For the most part, federal courts only hear:

Cases in which the United States is a party;

Cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws (under federal-question jurisdiction);

Cases between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (under diversity jurisdiction); and

Bankruptcy, copyright, patent, and maritime law cases.

In some cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court."

Federal courts may hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution.

In the case of Roe v Wade, the attorney's filed to the Supreme Court since the argument was that the state law was a violation of a federal law - specifically the 14th amendment assertion of right to privacy. That is what determines the jurisdiction in this case.

RvW was decided in 1973 with a 7-2 ruling in favor of Roe's right to privacy and ultimately right to choose how to treated her pregnancy. Why hasn't it been turned into law? Obvious reasons over the years include what party is in power in executive, congressional, or even judicial circles. Right now though we have a D in the executive and congress, but something many are overlooking is the critically important and understates judicial branch - which holds significant changes Trump installed.

Also regarding congressional, though there is a stronger hold on the house (even with 3 vacancies), the senate is just barely D majority with 50 R, 48 D and 2 independent as shown in the charts below. The two Independent Senators, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, caucus with the Democrats which brings it 50/50 and the US VP - Harris (D) in this case - is the President of the senate and ultimately serves as a tie breaker for votes as well as situations like this even divide of party members. Were the VP a republican than republicans would still have a senate majority.

I will dive more into what's going on with the senate and why even with a D majority it isn't where it needs to be as it's a bit less straight forward.

So how the hell are abortion rights being challenged? Why aren't the all powerful democrats doing anything?!

Well, they are and have been doing a lot - and I urge you in moments when you are frustrated by feeling as though "dems aren't doing anything" to dig deeper to understand how our government operates. It's very clear there is a poor comprehension of our civics system by the general population which is why I'm using this as an opportunity to not only inform but also to learn more myself. I was educated primarily in Texas public education system. I was privileged enough to have decent teachers, but there is still much to learn. I'm doing research as I write this. I've already learned a lot. Come learn with me!

Alright, you're on board with learning more? Great choice! Let's get into it.

So with dem control of executive and congressional branch, all that is left is judicial.

"Trump appointed 54 federal appellate judges in four years, one short of the 55 Obama appointed in twice as much time."

Trump also had a major influence on the nation’s highest court. The three Supreme Court justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are the most by any president since Ronald Reagan (who appointed four) and the most by any one-term president since Herbert Hoover

Donald Trump has appointed and the Senate has confirmed 220 Article III federal judges through November 1, 2020, his fourth year in office.

The average number of federal judges appointed by a president through November 1 of their fourth year in office is 200.

Judges are supposed to be neutral impartial parties who use only what is presented in court and through the judicial process (which involves looking at current standing laws) to determine their decisions in court instead of using their personal opinion or political sway to inform them. However, as we saw all too often, trump was not interested in impartiality. He was interested in control, asserting his own personal opinion, even on occasion insisting he himself as president had more control than the constitution actually allows. So with that conflict and the fact he installed so many judges really makes huge impact on the judicial branch of our government. Since every branch is supposed to be fair and equal this causes a lot of road block when one branch is neither fair nor equal. You can't simply use the other two the gain up on the third - though in this case that would be convenient for dems, it would be much less convenient when the parties were reversed. It's also important to acknowledge the reality that D are not always impartial either - which again we will get to after judicial chat - nor are all R unfair. This can be a hard pill to swallow, even for me. Reality is not always easy to accept.

So of course appointments made by trump, of which there were many, can not be trusted to actually be acting in good faith, but in favor of personal or political interests (which also often come down to personal interest of a financial persuasion). When judges are not impartial, they may make decisions that ultimately contradict what was presented in court or what the law of the land says. Typically if a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee (you can see an example here of the first day of Amy Comey Barrett's hearing day 1/3) determines that there is a conflict of interest or that they are illgitimate, then ideally a judge will be blocked from appointment. This clearly also depends on the makeup and impartiality of the Senate and thus the Committee. The Committee will debate and vote on whether or not to confirm every nomination made by a President. (it used to require 3/5 of the senate or 60 votes but since 2017 only requires a "simple majority" or 51 votes for confirmation)

I want to take a quick aside here and go a little philosophical in understanding judicial impartiality, because I hope it will help you have some perspective on how it's an inherently difficult matter. Ultimately the court's impartiality comes down to checks/balances and faith. Not religious faith, but faith in humanity and honesty. Trusting that there is no hidden motive or lies or manipulation at play. We tend to have to rely heavily on the checks and balances part since faith in humanity can be easily manipulated with lobbying and politicians eagerness to look bipartisan for popularity in elections (appealing as more bipartisan is considered a way of winning over more votes like centrists and those just left and right of it). Checks and balances allows oversight of the 3 branches over one another and attempting to keep the scales balanced in order to prevent any one branch being too powerful and ultimately to avoid the US being something more like a monarchy - which was a primary goal at the time of forming the constitution and government since it is what we had fought to escape in the first place.

"So judges aren't allowed their 1st amendment rights?!"

Humans are merely humans no matter what title they have or role they play and humans are inherently flawed and partial. Nobody is perfect and some make mistakes as well as bad faith decisions for ulterior motives (could be a matter of loyalty to well funded lobbyists or even general unchecked and ultimately supported ignorance or a power grab). After and throughout checks and balances, that is where the faith part comes in that we hope we can trust judges to put their personal opinion aside and go with what the evidence presented in court and the law and super precedents tell them. We trust the Committee to do their due diligence in researching nominees and asking them tough questions. Realistically everyone can and likely will have some kind of opinion on any major issue, so it is not that anyone expects a justice to not have a personal opinion, only that they not use it to determine their decision in court. So, say i was a judge looking at a defendant accused of a civil rights infringement and i personally felt that they were guilty but there was no or not enough "valid" evidence to prove it, I couldn't assert they are guilty just based off my own opinion. I would have to depend on the evidence shown in court proving that it has infringed on precedents or existing law.

(All the appointments made by trump can be viewed more in detail here.)

"BLAHBLAHBLAH WHAT ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT"

It would be too tumultuous for me to dig into each of the 3 Supreme Court judge appointments by trump in regards to current issues around Roe v Wade, so I'm going to focus on one that is likely most relevant in particular: Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was an appointment made when Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing caused a vacancy in the court. (Why didn't she retire under Obama? The Senate was GOP controlled which made the odds of a pro-choice appointment being confirmed low). RGB was well known for being a strong advocate for the right to choose and for a long time was a stronghold in the court to ensure Roe v Wade was upheld. Since trump wouldn't want to lose too many votes from women and allies to women, he made the clear choice to appoint a woman which is what i would call performative in the case that though Barrett is a woman she does not particularly stand on the side of women's rights.

In day two of Barrett's confirmation hearing, Senator Klobuchar honed in on Barrett's opinions regarding Roe v Wade - especially as to whether it is considered what is called a "super precedent", an important matter when talking about codification. Klobuchar makes it clear that Barrett has said she finds Brown v BoE to be a super precedent despite the Supreme Court never impressing that opinion, but refuses to consider Roe v Wade a super precedent despite that being a Supreme Court opinion. Barrett's argument is that "scholarly literature" she has read has asserted it is not a super precedent because calls for its overrule has never ceased, where as cases such as Brown v Board "nobody questions anymore". Klobuchar digs in again asking if US v Virginia Military is a "super precedent" and Barrett refuses to answer - or as she phrases it "grade" - because it wasn't one of the cases Barrett spoke about in an article she had written.

After Klobuchar asked Barrett if Roe v Wade is a super precedent, Barrett asked Klobuchar how the Senator defines a super precedent. Reasonably so, Klobuchar - who is a senator and not a judge - scoffs and puts that responsibility back on Barrett who was nominated to be a Supreme Court judge. Barrett obliges and asserts a definition that she uses is of (supposedly not conservative) ONE scholarly opinion which depends on a case being "so well settle that no political actors and no people seriously push to overrule"

In a scholarly opinion in 2006 by Michael J Gerhardt at University of North Carolina School of Law defined a super precedent in many ways one being "decisions whose correctness is no longer a viable issue for courts to decide; it is no longer a matter on which courts will expend their limited resources."

However:

in the Roberts hearings, Charles Fried, a prominent conservative legal scholar at Harvard, agreed explicitly that Roe was a superprecedent. As solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, Mr. Fried had asked the court to overturn Roe. But testifying on behalf of Judge Roberts, he said that Roe had become a super-duper precedent that would not and should not be overturned, because it was reaffirmed in 1992 and extended in subsequent decisions protecting gay rights and the right to die.

Here is a good example of what happens in academia and why i take "scholarly research" with a heap of salt since I have experience in doing scholarly research. When you are doing research, your audience is trusting that you have run through all the hard work of researching both sides of a specific matter - not just looking up opinions based on whether they are from a conservative or a liberal as that is not supposed to be what determines their opinion on any particular matter.

You are supposed to be actually looking into all the differing opinions on the specific subject matter. While it does help to have a context of the profile of the one giving the opinion, it is the evidence they present in their argument that is what should be prioritized in research. The audience is also trusting that the sources the researcher uses are valid, researched, and impartial and that any studies they use are peer reviewed and use proper methodology and are also impartial without any sway from funders. Since many academic resources that would elaborate on these details are often gatekept through paywalls or language or other accessibility barriers, it can be difficult for the general population to do their own research - the majority of which do not have access for one reason or another - they are left with nothing but to choose to have faith the researcher they are reading did their job earnestly.

Barrett focusing on opinions from scholars (actually it seems she is more dependent on one particular scholar's opinion - Gerhardt as seen in notes 128-132) based on whether or not they are typically conservative scholars is basing it on an irrelevant matter when she should have been taking on all opinions about super precedents and digging into comparing and contrasting them based on whether or not they hold water. It seems more like she sought a defense for her pre-determined opinion and insulated it from challenge by excluding any other assertions despite their significance. She ultimately failed at her responsibility as a researcher.

On Wednesday 9/2/21, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to not block Texas SB8, a decision that weakens Roe v Wade.

Now this has been a very long form way of spelling out just SOME of the impact that trump has had on the judicial branch. I want to now go back to 2016 when he was elected, and try to extrapolate why what happened in that election was a serious failure in regards to those responsible for casting their votes: The People.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people" is every single resident and/or citizen of the nation at any time. The constitution is essentially a contract drawn up between every single one of us including those born and raised here, those who move here, those who's communities were here before the formation of the nation, and those who may be a citizen but living elsewhere. The diversity of The People in every faucet of human life makes this document necessarily complicated and amendable. In consequence the way in which our government is also complicated but also amendable. One matter that has been a point of contention since the dawning of the nation is the right to vote.

Who could vote & When (.):

1776: white men over 21 who owned land

1870 Racial barriers eliminated tho 15th is not enforced by states

1920: white women can vote

1924: Native american's given voting rights

1964: Civil Rights Act - all above 21y/o may vote regardless of identifiers such as race - ensures Black people's right to vote

1971: Voting age lowered to 18

1984: Accessibility extended to disabled americans by setting accessibility standards

In between all of these are other matters that challenged the accessibility to voting for one population or another such as literacy tests, naturalization, and polling taxes. Many of the challenges were directly challenging to People of Color particularly Black Women. To this day there are still many who must fight to assert their right - a right that should never be denied, never be thought of as less than inherent. Access is less a concern for the wealthy and well to do as their needs are never on the line the way it is for people who are poor, Black, disabled, immigrant, or even just have a primary language other than English.

For those of us who have never had to fight to utilize our right to vote in our life have too often shown that we do not respect the power in this right. Or rather know exactly how powerful it is and choose to use that power in a destructive way because we aren't getting our faves. For the first many many years I was eligible to vote, I refused to at all because I do not like how our government and politicians conducts themselves. As soon as I learned about the filibuster I was so pissed I didn't want to partake at all. Have I be impacted by this personally? To an effect, but not in a way that impacts my life significant enough for me to really notice. But in congruence with other privileged decisions not to vote, it has certainly impacted many lives. In a nation where communities are still fighting to have the law meant to protect them properly enforced, it is entirely a privilege abused to choose not to vote.

Though I was 18 in 2007, 2016 I cast my first vote.

Why? Because it was finally looking as though I may face personal consequences if I didn't. Prior to 2016 i wasn't worried bc there was obama, i wasn't old enough to vote when bush was up for relection and seeing him win again embittered me further. by the time I was 18, I saw how unreliable 3rd party was despite my parents being all in that gambit, and otherwise it all felt like nobody was paying attention to the issues only on popularity contests. All i thought of though was my perspective on the matter. It was all me-centric, my choice to withhold from voting in any election. When trump started to look less like a joke and actually got traction, I saw my neighbors trump signs and i looked at where i was in life. I had also began to actually do the work and stop letting apathy guide my decisions, but to rather listen to my humanity and my responsibility as my neighbor's neighbor.

Quite literally. At the time my neighbor was a Black woman. I only spoke to her once and it was when she came by to selflessly make sure I was going to be ok when our landlord was kicking us out to sell the place out from under our feet - something I hadn't even considered doing yet seemed like second nature for her to do (to be fair i was struggling to find a place but i've no idea about her life). I wish i had gotten her name and stayed in touch, it's kind-hearted people like that that are hard to come by. I'm still working on being as selfless.

I was and am proud to have not only voted in 2016, but for my first vote to have been for a woman. I was scared and for someone other than myself for once in 2016. I had high hopes for Clinton based on name recognition and basic common sense.

Humans are not perfect. Nor are they inherently humble.

Trump encouraged arrogance among the most ignorant leaning right. Sanders encouraged arrogance in the most ignorant leaning left. Clinton seemed to always get the most dramatic fire though from both sides, which signaled to me some kind of mess was going on. My own parents tried to sell me on Sanders, but by this point I had a better concept of how to properly research and untangle the mythologies that were parroted by my own parents about Clinton. Even when I proved their parroted lies wrong they were unwilling to concede, only to move the goal post or deflect.

Now, I get to my point.

Which is to really smack upside the head of anyone who chose not to vote in 2016, everyone who is left or liberal but voted for trump, everyone who wrote in someone else. If trump hadnt made it in as POTUS, paired with the republican majority senate, the landscape of the judicial branch would not have faced such a conservative shift, it wouldn't have given mcconnell so much influence, it wouldn't have resulted in the pandemic being so much worse than it needed to be. Many lives would have been spared. You can only blame the government for so long until you realize we are the government, we install the government, and we hold power we must use wisely. We the People.

Many who voted for clinton have been critical of her. As we always should be critical of those we choose in any level of government. We the people hold responsibilities that build this nation from the ground up, and without adherence to those responsibilities it puts other's rights in danger. When we decide that something doesn't matter that much to us or weighing it against the consequences we may personally face - you're failing in your responsibility to your neighbor who is likely doing far more justice to you than you are extending to them.

Yes my white people i look at you.

Yes my white men I look at you.

Yes my white queers I look at you.

Yes my white degree holders I look at you.

Yes white youth I look at you where I once was. When I was younger and arrogant and naive and apathetic and bitter and I let all that guide my choices instead of my concern for the neighbor who was looking out for me.

I still matter in the formation and function of tomorrow's government and I'm going to make sure I let my impact be constructive for all my neighbors who have extended such courtesy to me by not shirking my main duty to make an informed vote in every election i may partake in from local to national.

The differences among us in this nation may seemingly tend to fall along party lines, what the real metric is:

Do you give a fuck outside your own home?

Or is it just about what you want, what you think, what you feel? Nothing in this nation is just involving you or your bestie or your family, we're in this together whether we like it or not. Trust me as someone who struggles daily to find the humanity in others, I know how toxic that can be to your perspective when you give into it. Believe in benefit of the doubt, believe in change, believe in your power to do good for others. Believe and invest in your humanity.

While i can be mad at conservative votes for trump that was to be expected. I'm far more disappointed in the right AND DUTY to vote being given up by so many on the left simply because their fave didn't make it to the finals. That is not how establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. AOC and Pressley and Porter did not make it where they are by their supportive constituents abdicating their right to vote.

I accept my faults in never having voted before 2016 even in local elections. It was stupid and selfish and 2016 woke me up to that reality. You don't go from 0 to trump overnight. Do you accept your fault in not voting in 2016 when one of the most detrimental candidates was running and won?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Trudeau promises massive covid stimulus

Canadian Prime Ministers have a fun gambit: when things start to go really badly for them, they "prorogue" (suspend) Parliament, which dissolves all committees, inquiries, etc, until such time as they are ready to reconvene, with a tabula rasa.

Most egregiously, the far-right asshole and climate criminal Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament in the middle of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis in order to avoid a no-confidence vote that would have triggered new elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

While this DID save Harper's bacon, it also left Canada without a legislature during a global crisis that threatened the nation's entire future. It was a crazed, reckless thing to do.

Canada has a safeguard to prevent this kind of gambit: as a constitutional monarchy, Canadian parliamentary manoeuvres have to receive the Crown's blessing, in the form of assent from the Governor General, the Queen's rep to Canada.

This is the sober, apolitical adult supervision that fans of constitutional monarchies are always banging on about, and then-Governor General Michaëlle Jean completely failed to do her fucking job, leaving Canada without a Parliament during the GFC. She literally had one job.

Proroguing Parliament didn't just save Harper from a no-confidence vote: it also dissolved all the Parliamentary inquiries underway at the time, including the "Afghan detainee transfer" affair, which was investigating Canadian forces' complicity in the torture-murder of POWs.

In many ways, Trudeau is the anti-Harper: a charismatic Liberal who tells refugees they're welcome in Canada, marches with Greta Thunberg, and appoints the first-ever First Nations person to serve as Attorney General .

Truly, there is no policy so progressive that Trudeau won't endorse it...provided he doesn't actually have to make it into policy. Because many of his policies are indistinguishable from Harperism, albeit with a better haircut.

This started before he won the election, when Trudeau (whose father once declared martial law!) whipped his MPs to vote for a human-rights-denying mass surveillance bill, C-51.

Trudeau did so while insisting that the bill was a massive overreach and totally unacceptable, but claiming that the "loyal opposition" should still back it so as not to be accused of being soft on terrorism in the coming election. He promised to repeal it after.

Of course, he didn't.

Trudeau is often compared to Obama, a young and charismatic fellow who makes compromises, sure, but comes through in the clutch.

Tell that to pipeline protesters.

After the Obama administration killed the Transmountain Pipeline - the continent-spanning tube that would make filthy, planet-destroying tar sands profitable enough to bring to market - Trudeau bailed it out, spending billions of federal dollars to keep it alive.

Then, Trudeau - who campaigned on nation-to-nation truth and reconciliation with First Nations - announced that he would shove this toxic tar-sand tube through unceded treaty lands across the breadth of the naiton.

And then he had the AUDACITY to march with Greta Thunberg at the head of a climate march, demanding a change to policies that would see billions dead in the coming century.

HIS OWN policies.

I mean, Trudeau's boosters have a point - Harper NEVER could have pulled that off.

The Harper years were a Trumpian orgy of blatant self-dealing and cronyism.

The Trudeau years, on the other hand...

One of Trudeau's major donors is SNC Lavalin, a crime syndicate masquerading as a global engineering firm (think Halliburton with less morals).

SNC Lavalin had done so much crime that it was on its final notice with the Canadian legal sysem, a probation that it must not violate on penalty of real, big boy federal criminal prosecutions.

Then it did more crimes.

Remember Trudeau's historic appointment of a First Nations woman to the Attorney General's seat? Now was AG Jody Wilson-Raybould's moment to shine.

As Wilson-Raybould began aggressively pursuing these corporate criminals, she started getting calls from Trudeau's office.

For avoidance of doubt, these were not calls of support. They were demands to drop the case and let the SNC Lavalin crime syndicate get off scot-free. Eventually the PM himself called her and demanded that she give his cronies a pass on their repeated criminal actions.

Wilson-Raybould went public, decrying political meddling in the justice system. Trudeau denied everything and began to smear her (Harper had tons of scandals like this, BTW, only the counterpart was usually a rich old white guy, not a First Nations woman).

But Wilson-Raybould had recorded the conversations, and she released the recordings, and proved that Trudeau had lied about the whole thing. Trudeau fired her and kicked her out of the party.

But at least he's not Trump, right? He's the anti-Trump! (Well, except for the pipeline and that time he announced "No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there").

Remember the Muslim Ban? As Trump was tormenting refugees at the US border, Trudeau tweeted "To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada."

Yes, that was awesome. There is no policy so progressive that Trudeau won't endorse it...provided that he never has to do anything to make it happen.

Canada and the US have a "Safe Third Country Agreement" that says that asylum-seekers turned away from the US border can't try again in Canada. To make #WelcomeToCanada more than a hashtag, Trudeau's government would have to suspend that agreement.

Instead, Trudeau's government insisted that under Trump, "the conditions of the Safe Third Country Agreement continued to be met" and thus they would not suspend the agreement and give hearings to those turned away by Trump's border guards.

But at least Trudeau handled the pandemic better than Harper handled the Great Financial Crisis.

No, really, he did!

Mostly.

I mean, unless you were in a nursing home or on a First Nations reservation.

https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/an-emergency-season-pandemic/

But still, Trudeau's government did a MUCH better job than the Trump government, or Boris Johnson's Tories. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives will really fight cronyism, climate change or authoritarianism, but there are still substantive differences between them.

But in some ways, they are depressingly similar.

Take corruption.

Long before the plague struck, Canadaland was publishing damning reports on We Charity, a massive, beloved Canadian charitable institution nominally devoted to ending child slavery.

Canadaland's initial reporting on the charity focused on its partnerships with companies that were using child slaves to make their products, but the investigations mushroomed after the charity sent dire legal threats to the news organisation over its coverage.

And then Canadaland founder Jesse Brown found himself smeared by a US dirty-tricks organization that got its start working for GOP politicians, who got a contract to plant editorials criticizing Canadaland's We coverage in small-town US newspapers.

Private eyes started following Brown around, even keeping tabs on his small children. Rather than being intimidated, Brown kept up the pressure on We, which prompted whistleblowers to leak him even more details about the charity's activities.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/08/03/turnkey-authoritarianism/#we-charity

These included massive, mysterious real-estate holdings, hard-to-excuse criminal investigations of its Kenyan activities, and (here's where I've been going with this all along) GIANT CASH PAYMENTS to Trudeau's family, as well as valuable gifts to his Finance Minister.

And, as with the Wilson-Reybould affair, Trudeau's initial response to this was to simply deny it, calling his accusers liars. But then the scandal kept unspooling, his Finance Minister quit in disgrace, the charity (sort of) folded up and shut down, and Trudeau...

Well, Trudeau prorogued Parliament, shutting down Canada's government in the midst of a crisis that was - unimaginably - even worse than the 2008 crisis that Harper had left the nation rudderless through to avoid his own scandal.

(Again, for constitutional monarchy fans, that's two entirely political proroguings in the midsts of global crises, signed off on by the Queen's supposedly apolitical and sober check on reckless activity)

Shutting down Parliament seems to have rescued Trudeau's government from snap elections, which may well have been won by the Tories, who have resolved their longstanding racist and plutocratic tensions with a new ghoulish nightmare leader:

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/canada-erin-otoole-conservative-party-cpc/

And, as Trudeau has reconvened Parliament, he's promised something genuinely amazing: a massive, national stimulus package meant to keep families, workers and small businesses afloat through the looming second pandemic wave.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada-economy/canada-bets-the-farm-on-big-spending-as-second-wave-threatens-economic-recovery-idUSKCN26F1NF

This is something Canada - and the US, for that matter - desperately needs. Canada is monetarily sovereign: it issues its own currency and its debt is in the same currency, meaning it can never run out of money (no more than Apple could ever run out of Itunes gift cards).

The Canadian DOES face constraints on its spending, but they're just not MONETARY constraints - they're RESOURCE constraints. If the Canadian government creates money to buy the same things the private sector is shopping for, there'll be a bidding war, AKA inflation.

But as a new wave of lockdowns and mass illness looms over the country, there's going to be a hell of a lot of things the private sector isn't trying to buy - notably, the labour of the Canadian workforce, millions of whom will be locked indoors through the winter.

An analyst warns that Trudeau's proposal is likely to add CAD30B to the deficit, which is a completely irrelevant fact unless that new money is going to be chasing the same goods that Canadian business and citizens are seeking to buy.

Trudeau has promised to create a national prescription drug plan (a longstanding hole in Canada's national health care system), as well as universal childcare, and he's denounced austerity as a response to the crisis.

There's a part of me that is very glad to see this. My family and friends are in Canada, after all, and if Trudeau lives up to his promise, he will shield them from the collapse we're seeing in the USA.

But that is a BIG if. Trudeau isn't Harper. He's more charismatic, he's got better hair, and he says much, much better things than Harper.

However, when the chips are down, Trudeau out-Harpers Harper.

Mass surveillance legislation. Corruption scandals. Lying about corruption scandals. Bailing out the pipeline. "No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there." Abandoning asylum-seekers to Trump's lawless regime.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." It would be pretty naive to assume that merely because Trudeau has promised to do the right thing, that he will do the right thing.

Indeed, if history is any indicator, the best way to predict what Trudeau will do is to assume that it will be the OPPOSITE of whatever he promises.

I won't lie. I felt a spark of hope when I read Trudeau's words.

But hope is all I've got - and it's a far cry from confidence.

Or relief.

[st-just]

I've seen you post a few times some interesting world building snippets, is there a setting your working on at the moment, or are they unrelated? (Feel free to use this an invitation to talk about the world, I'd love to hear about it)

Well, since you did ask for it!

They’re mostly theoretically written to be in the same setting, with a sort of acceptance that when put together it’ll probably be a bit incoherent around the edges. Given that it started as the setting for a D&D game that ended like a year ago and has just stewed and metastasized since then, that’s kind of a given, really.

But honestly, the initial impetus was reading...I think it was Strangers Drowning?, anyway, there was a discussion of how rather than just ‘selfish versus selfless’, a more useful distinction is how people distribute moral weight between themselves, their friends/family/close circle, and the general public/world at large. And, being an utter nerd, my second or third thought was “huh, that’s a pretty decent chassis for an alignment system that’s meaningfully distinct from good vs. Evil”.

So then I ended up working out three Great Powers for a world as sort of ideal types/expressions of each extreme, and then coming up with cultures and aesthetics that seemed kind of fitting after the fact, which I’m fairly sure is not how you’re supposed to do it, but anyway.

So on the one extreme you’ve got the Sublime Commonwealth, called the Esheri by everyone without a government job. A universalist, bureaucratic state, governed by Janissary-technocrats plucked from orphanages and schools, without family or property or the right to any sort of legacy beyond what they can contribute to the Common Good. Mandatory public education, but it’s solely in the equivalent of Esperanto. Religious freedom, as long as the temples accept state funding and choose their preachers and officials from government-approved seminaries and madrassas, with the more or less explicit goal that after a few generations of modernist theology and Higher Criticism the whole thing will be unnecessary. Family ties considered broken at the age of majority, or when the parents are deemed negligent, with newly formed households encouraged to take their name from some civic virtue or geographic feature rather than anything related to their cultures or ancestries. Public sanitation and healthcare and food relief, but also if the Committee on Strategy determines that they really need a new naval port you might find out you’re moving in a month, all your sacred rites and trade secrets will be carefully recorded for inclusion in the next edition of The Encyclopedia, and so forth. Titles like “Empiricist.” “Special Adviser to the Secretariat,” “Alternate Member of the Committee on Industry and Progress”.

The second power would be the Holy Ilyrin Empire, or possibly Ilyrin-Belthaya, depending on who you ask and where you’re standing. Not so much a unified ‘state’ as a vast and sprawling collection of crown in personal union, sworn vassals, various sorts of tributaries and protectorates, and a thousand other sorts of distinctions fit to make any central administrator cry. The Empire’s exceptionally big on tradition, you see and while the Queen-Empress is clearly the Heavens’ chosen Vicegerent, she and her court have no special authority to meddle in the natural and organic constitutions of her various subjects, save to defend them from unnatural innovation or outside influence. Family, lineage, and inheritance  are all exceptionally important, with infertility being treated like a malignant tumour that’s too humiliating to discuss in public, and disinheriting a child or repudiating ones family being more or less unthinkable, though the particulars of just who counts as your ‘family’ or ‘children’ can vary quite a bit, depending on location and circumstance. Regardless, nepotism and patronage are so widely accepted there’s barely words for them, and certainly no stigma attached-really, not going out of your way to help out distant relatives or family friends with any jobs or trading tips you happen to be able to hand out is what would get you ostracized and looked down upon. Religion is everywhere, and all-encompassing, but despite what the Hierarch in Imir might desire, most minority faiths have sort of official compact with their lords and ladies mandating toleration as long as they keep to themselves and know their limits. Education is handled through guilds and churches, without any sort of central organization or certification scheme, and the vast majority of really useful or impressive knowledge is hoarded by particular sacred orders or guilds or family lines. Absolutely all relief against misfortune relies upon your local churches and notables and whether your family or social circle can support you, but on the other hand if you’ve got a good thing going there’s essentially zero chance someone is going to come in from on high and destroy it, and if some system works then it’s going to be allowed to keep working. Titles like “Earl Marshal,” “Lady Protector.” “Witchfinder-General”

Third and the Free Cities, or the Federal Republic, or the Unconnected Collection of City-States Who Share Many Prominent Citizens And Trading Interests. Words are wind, and honour is an affectation, duty and loyalty are chains the cunning try to fasten around the necks of the strong. Notably, the only democracies-in a somewhat Athenian sense, with crimes against the City being tried before an assembly of citizens and determined by popular vote, without reference to written law, and open campaigning for command of armies and bidding for the right to exact tribute from the various hinterland tribes. As a matter of principle, there is no obligation that is not freely accepted, whether to family or faith or sovereign. The great and good of the Cities enrapture the masses with their feuds and romances, and a vital part of any political career is providing grand spectacles and public feasts to entertain and sustain the masses living on the street, the vast majority of whom can rely upon no other source of charity. Religion is commonplace, though objectively a large fraction of them are probably better called ‘cults’, sustained by direct sponsorship or force of personality, feuding with all the other street gangs and syndicates in bloody, shadowy affairs, each sect rising and burning out like a seasonal fashion, though each City has something like an official patron and a few festivals widely observed enough to have the mob firmly behind them. As the City Assemblies assign duties or assignments and not occupations, there’s officially speaking no title higher than the elected captain of a ship or mercenary company. Not allowing this to humble them, it’s an accepted practice for the famous and important to take various grand sobriquets and epithets-”The ingenious,” “the magnificent,” “Maestro of Falling Stars,” “Weaver in Blood and Bone,” and so on.

....I can keep going on pretty much indefinitely, but I’ll stop writing their in the interest of actually posting this relatively soon after receiving it.

[day0one]

Donald Trump's Far-Right Extremist Army Has Turned On Him

The monster that Trump created doesn’t need him anymore.

For months, President Donald Trump’s message to his supporters was clear: The election was being stolen from him, and they needed to fight to take it back.

So on January 6, during a Trump-promoted rally to “Stop the Steal,” thousands laid siege to the US Capitol in a stunning attempt to do just that. The fallout of their failed insurrection, which resulted in five deaths, was swift: Trump was de-platformed from nearly every major social network and, on Wednesday, impeached for a historic second time.

When he emerged on camera a short while later, tail tucked between his legs, to condemn the rioters whom he himself had incited, and to call for a peaceful transfer of power to president-elect Joe Biden, his base felt betrayed.

“So he basically just sold out the patriots who got rounded up for him,” one person wrote in a 15,000-member pro-Trump Telegram group. “Just wow.”

In online havens for MAGA extremists, including Gab, CloutHub, MeWe, Telegram, and far-right message boards such as 8kun, the tone toward Trump is shifting. HuffPost reviewed thousands of messages across these platforms and found that a growing minority of the president’s once-devout backers are now denouncing him and rejecting his recent pleas for peace. Some have called for his arrest or execution, labeling him a “traitor” and a “coward.” Alarmingly, many of those who are irate about Biden’s supposed electoral theft is still plotting to forcibly prevent him from taking office – with or without Trump’s help.

“We don’t follow you,” another Telegram user wrote, addressing Trump after the president put out his video urging calm and order. “Be quiet and get out of our way.”

It has become apparent that now – after his mass radicalization campaign of voter-fraud disinformation and conspiracy-mongering – even Trump can’t stop the dangerous delusion he’s instilled across the country or the next wave of violence it may soon bring.

Authorities are urgently warning of armed protests being planned in all 50 state capitals in the days leading up to Biden’s inauguration. Politically motivated extremists “will very likely pose the greatest domestic terrorism threats in 2021,” according to a new joint intelligence bulletin from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and US National Counterterrorism Center. The document, first obtained by Yahoo News, attributes this threat to “false narratives” that Biden’s victory “was illegitimate, or fraudulent,” and the subsequent belief that the election results “should be contested or unrecognized.”

Ahead of last week’s riots, Trump supporters openly planned their attack on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other mainstream platforms, where they shared materials including flyers titled “Operation Occupy the Capitol.” These sites have since cracked down aggressively on such behavior, causing extremists to migrate to lesser-known corners of the internet to plan their next move.

While this has hindered their ability to spread propaganda and enlist new recruits, their new social channels are subject to less scrutiny and have already exploded in reach.CloutHub, MeWe, and Telegram shot to the top of the charts of popular free apps on the App Store and Google PlayStorein the wake of the siege. Gab has also reported a massive surge in new users, with about 10,000 people signing up every hour.

In these spaces, HuffPost has observed calls to “burn down” the Capitol, launch “an armed revolt,” “pop some libtards” and “TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK WHATEVER IT TAKES!!” Some posts are more specific:“Civil War is here. Group up locally. Take out the News stations,” one person declared. “LET’S HANG THEM ALL,” another implored. “LET’S FINISH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.”

The Boogaloo Bois, a far-right militia organizing to foment civil war, is capitalizing on the unrest to issue online a renewed call to arms. The FBI has warned specifically of potential Boogaloo violence during planned rallies at state Capitol buildings in Michigan and Minnesota on Sunday.

“There's a war coming, and cowering in your home [while] real patriots march with rifles ... will make you a traitor,” commented a member of an encrypted Boogaloo chat.

Some extremists, however, are urging each other not to attend any of the upcoming armed protests. The Proud Boys, a rabidly pro-Trump neo-fascist group that helped storm the Capitol, is cautioning its followers that such demonstrations could be “fed honeypot” events set up by authorities in order to seize attendees’ guns.

It seems that even the Proud Boys are losing faith in Trump: a Telegram channel run by the group reposted a message with Trump’s video along with the text “The Betrayal of Trumpist base by Trump himself continues.”

For four years, the president’s supporters have worshipped him like a god. His rallies have been likened to cult gatherings. Nearly half of his campaign donations came from small donors, trouncing Biden’s 39%. For most of his presidency, Trump enjoyed strong support from the Republican base, polling well above 90% with that group. But after the Capitol riots, his support is plummeting at record rates.

MAGA world has stood unwaveringly by Trump’s side through multiple allegations of sexual assault (including rape), an impeachment for abuse of power, revelations that his administration literally caged children, a historic rise in national debt, countless lies, blatant self-enrichment by him and his family members, a pandemic that has claimed close to 400,000 American lives under his leadership – nearly a fifth of all deaths worldwide – and more.

So to see his “America First” army suddenly begin to turn on him is truly remarkable. It’s happening broadly among his supporters, and even among the far-right extremist communities that have flourished online during Trump’s presidency.

Among the recent messages excoriating Trump in dedicated pro-Trump networks:“tbh I hope they hang Trump at this point”; “He deserves what’s coming to him”; “he is literally done he will die in jail”; “Seriously hoping they’ll lock him up or lynch [him]”; “Guy is the biggest cuck ever at this point”; “Can’t wait til the left locks up his bitch ass. Rot in prison.” Several people have proclaimed that at this point, Trump can only redeem himself by declaring martial law to maintain power by force.

After losing to Biden, Trump systematically attacked the allies that propped up his presidency in a desperate effort to keep his re-election fantasy alive.

He first turned his adherents against Fox News, which stoked his ire by accurately projecting Biden’s electoral victory in Arizona before a few other networks did so. Then, when some Republicans – including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell – declined to play along with his unsupported claims of mass voter fraud, Trump urged his base to turn on them. After that came Trump’s own vice president, Mike Pence, who refused Trump’s unconstitutional demand to reject votes in favor of Biden. (“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution,” Trump tweeted on the afternoon of January 6, provoking chants of “Hang Pence” during the riots.)

Now that Trump himself appears to finally be backing away from his “Stop the Steal” hoax, a growing faction of his supporters is through with him, too.

But after the dramatic failure of his slow-motion coup, as he counts down the days until his return to life as a private citizen, Trump presumably has more pressing concerns than maintaining his followers’ devotion. Aside from the hundreds of millions of dollars in personal debt hanging over his head, it seems increasingly likely that he could face criminal prosecution, from which he will no longer be immune. And following his latest impeachment, if the Senate convicts him, it can also vote to disqualify him from ever running for office again.

With so much at stake and no sane hope of clinging to power, it’s now in the president’s best interest for his base to avoid further violence, which could increase his chances of conviction. But the reality is that the monster Trump created doesn’t need him anymore.

“He can promise and call for peace all he likes,” one Gab user wrote. “Won’t make a blind bit of difference.”

[theheaterishotjournals]

Found the rant I wrote. I laid into poor Walter and I wasn’t even trying to fucking aim it at him. I was just so mad and I had an outlet to rant about this shit. 

Dude. I don't care anymore. I don't give a shit. The fucking DNC did everything they could to keep Sanders from winning this shit despite him doing well. THey pushed and pushed. They put out attack ads on him. Change poll numbers. Did every dirty tactic they could for a supposedly fellow party member.

THey want a conservative Democrat so bad? Go right the fuck ahead. I am fucking done with believing in a party funded by the exact same fucking billionaires that fund the republican party.

Kamala Harris has voted for parents to be jailed if their parents are truant. Forced schools to snitch students to ICE. ICE, the department that forces the people detained to drink toilet water? That chemically cleans the jail cells in hazmat suits leaving the detainees with nothing? That separates children from their famly and then give them to white people? Kamala, who arrested black people on marijuana possession. Voted against legalizing it? How many times has her Republican opponents actually ended up more left than her on an issue? Fought against indigenous tribes from keeping their land?

Biden who voted for segregation. To go to war with Iraq? Who, through his entire history, has voted with the right on major policies so many times. Who is ALSO implicated for rape?! MUCH LIKE DONALD TRUMP? He is BETTER? How?! Biden who JUST RECENTLY said that he plans on having more police out there to stop the "rioters".

You say THESE are NOT authoritarian in ANY WAY. Are you SERIOUS. DNC is just pushing that fucking narrative constantly. "They're slightly worse. Actually, they're just as bad but we give the American people the illusion of choice. So vote for them if you aren't stupid."

HOw are these two ANY BETTER. How is this not corrupt? What the fuck did my family get out of Vietnam for? From one system where the friends of the higher ups keep getting hired over and over again to another system that only elects people willing to suck billionaire dick?

Local elections. That's all I care about anymore. Local policies to get changed. I vote on local policies and try to help my city. I want to flip seats in the House and Senate. I will devote time to get other states to vote that way. I don't give a SHIT about the presidential election anymore. I am voting third until this shit breaks. I am fucking sick and tired of the DNC manipulating people into thinking that this is the only way to beat those dirty Republicans when the mayors of cities with disproportinate deaths of black people by the hands of police are still democrats.

I am disillusioned. I hae no faith in the system. I refuse to keep being bullied to perpetuate a cycle of our tax money going to rich people to overseas bank accounts that can't be taxed while poor people try to hold down 3 jobs in order to even feed themselves. I am done. I am so hateful and full of spite at how Americans are being held hostage by this two party system. By the electoral college (that they recently voted on and said it wasn't in the constitution to have winners be selected by popular vote) and they actually did nothing about it.

I am disillusioned.

-------

Democrats are pushing a propaganda narrative too. It’s the republicans. Not the billionaires, it’s the conservatives, the republicans. Vote Blue. We’ll suppress those dirty conservatives any day now. 

[go-redgirl]

ORLANDO, Florida—Vice President Mike Pence rallied at a Latinos for Trump event here on Saturday as President Donald Trump now leads his Democrat opponent former Vice President Joe Biden in the Sunshine State.

“It’s great to be back in the Sunshine State with some great Americans who are going to drive a victory here in Florida and all across America,” Pence said as he took the stage here at Central Christian University. “Thank you, Latinos for Trump. I’m here for one reason, and one reason only: because Florida, and America, need four more years of Donald Trump in the White House. The road to victory runs right through Florida.”

Pence’s campaign swing through central Florida during which Breitbart News is traveling with him and is scheduled to interview him—he is also leading a Make America Great Again rally in the Villages later in the day—comes as the vice president has emerged as the Trump-Pence ticket’s top campaigner while the president continues his recovery from the coronavirus in the White House. 

Other Trump campaign leaders and first family surrogates have also stepped up campaign activities as part of what the team calls “Operation MAGA.” 

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, for instance is hitting the trail aggressively this coming week with more than two dozen scheduled events crisscrossing the nation.

Trump is scheduled to later on Saturday hold his first public event, at the White House, since contracting the virus. Trump was diagnosed a little over a week ago—last Thursday—and then later was transferred last weekend to Walter Reed hospital to begin his recovery. 

 After beginning his treatment there with a dose of Regeneron’s antibody cocktail medication, and treatment with remdesivir and the steroid dexamethosone, Trump returned to the White House earlier this week to continue his recovery.  

He began working again mid-week, visiting the Oval Office, and has also now started conducting interviews again as Friday he appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s and Mark Levin’s respective nationally broadcast radio programs as well as giving his first on-camera interview to Fox News’s Dr. Marc Siegel, which aired Friday evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight.  

Trump will resume campaigning on Monday with a rally nearby here, in Sanford, Florida, his first time back on the trail since the infection. 

But in the meantime, Pence—who earlier this week debated Democrat vice presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) in Salt Lake City, Utah—is the top dog out there for the Trump campaign. This weekend Florida swing comes after a Thursday post-debate campaign trip to Arizona and Nevada, western states the president split with Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. Trump won the former, and Clinton won the latter.

“I don’t know if you all got to see it, but I was just in Utah the other night—we had a little debate with Kamala Harris,” Pence told the cheering crowd here in Orlando. “Some people think we did alright. But I want to clear: From where I was sitting, that debate was not just a debate between two candidates for vice president. It was a debate between two visions for America. 

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want higher taxes, open borders, socialized medicine; they want to abolish fossil fuels, and use taxpayer funding to pay for abortion. They want to defund the police. President Donald Trump’s vision is a little bit different. President Trump says rebuild our military. We cut taxes; we rolled back regulations, unleashed American energy, secured our border, supported law enforcement, life and liberty and the Constitution of the United States. When you compare the Biden-Harris agenda with our agenda, the choice is clear. 

If you cherish faith and freedom and law and order and life, then we need four more years of President Donald Trump in the White House.”Pence’s team is riding high into the Sunshine State, too, as the latest public polling here shows Trump leading Biden in the final weeks by three points. That poll, from Fox35, correctly predicted the 2008 and 2016 elections.  

It show Trump performing strongly among Hispanic and black voters, but like other surveys it shows the president’s ticket underperforming 2016 numbers among seniors—a demographic that Biden is making a push for. Pence is working to hit both key demographics—Hispanics and seniors—with his pair of campaign events here on Saturday.

Helping energize Hispanic voters for the president are multiple factors, including a key endorsement in recent weeks from Puerto Rico’s Gov. Wanda Vazquez Garced—an endorsement Pence hyped here—and strong support in the Cuban community in the state.

 Pence also made a key point to hype Trump’s word against Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, and standing up the communists in Cuba.“Under President Donald Trump, we have stood for freedom across this hemisphere for all freedom-loving people,” Pence told the Latinos for Trump rally-goers here. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States was the first nation on earth to recognize President Juan Guaido as the only legitimate president of Venezuela. Under this president, America has been clear: Maduro must go and America will stand with the people of Venezuela.

 Under Joe Biden as vice president, he served at a time when America was appeasing the communist regime in Havana. President Donald Trump kept the promise that he made to Cuban Americans when he reversed the failed policies of the last administration toward Cuba. In this White House, it will always be Que Viva Cuba Libre.

President @realDonaldTrump kept his promise to Cuban Americans when he reversed the failed policies of the last administration. In this @WhiteHouse, it will always be que viva Cuba libre!3:22 PM · Oct 10, 2020

He also hyped economic successes the Trump administration has delivered for Hispanics.

“Nearly half of the jobs that were created in our first three years went to Hispanic Americans,” Pence said. “That’s what we call promises made and promises kept. So I’m excited to talk to you about that and see the enthusiasm here today on this cool and breezy day in Florida. President Trump is keeping his promises. It’s why Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vazquez Garced just endorsed President Donald Trump for re-election as President of the United States. This week, the governor of Puerto Rico asked people in that territory to vote for who’s been there for Puerto Rico in its most difficult moments. She said very plainly it is Donald Trump. 

She thanked the president for rebuilding Puerto Rico not just with words but with actions. She said thanks to the president’s leadership, pharmaceutical manufacturing is coming back to the island. China is fired and Puerto Rico is hired.”

These events along the I-4 corridor, which stretches from Daytona through Orlando down to Tampa, are key to the Trump team wooing seniors back from clutches of Biden and the Democrats. A key focus from Pence’s messaging on the trail is zoning in on just how radical the left truly is, and what that would mean for the general public if Biden and Harris were to win and be able to implement their agenda. 

That’s something Pence focused on in Wednesday’s debate with Harris, putting her on the hot seat on court-packing, fracking, China, and her questionable-at-best record as a prosecutor in San Francisco and in California.

The vice president’s trip here also comes less than two days before Judge Amy Coney Barrett is set to begin her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday morning, after Trump nominated her a couple weeks ago to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats and the establishment media have unleashed a barrage of vicious attacks against Barrett, targeting her faith and even her adopted children, in what is expected to be a fierce showdown in the Senate and in the public eye just before the election.

“Last month as a nation we paused to honor the life and service of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Pence told the cheering crowd here. “When the memorials were over, President Trump fulfilled his duty under the Constitution of the United States and he nominated a principled, brilliant, conservative woman who believes in the Constitution to the Supreme Court. He nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

”As “Fill That Seat” chants broke out among the crowd, Pence turned and promised them that Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate will get it done. “Let me make you a promise: After the Senate gets done with the advisement and consent, we’re going to fill that seat,” Pence told the crowd which erupted in applause.“I got to tell you, I’m a big fan of Judge Amy Coney Barrett—not just because she’s from Indiana, but she’s a truly remarkable person,” Pence continued. 

“She deserves a dignified hearing, a dignified and respectful hearing in the United States Senate. But, men and women, we have reason to be concerned. You all remember when she was appointed to the court of appeals just two years ago, the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee criticized her Catholic faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said ‘the dogma lives loudly within you.’ Hollywood elites have already begun to criticize Judge Barrett and her family for their faith. Well, I got news for the Democrats and their friends in Hollywood: That dogma lives loudly in me. 

That dogma lives loudly in you. That’s the right to live and to worship according to the dictates of our faith lives loudly in the Constitution of the United States.

”The president has the lead in Florida—and its 29 electoral votes are crucial to his path to re-election. Assuming the president can keep Georgia, Texas, and Arizona red—those are three traditionally red states that Biden and Democrats hope to flip—and hold onto Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and here in Florida, along with Maine’s Second District, he would be one state away from locking down a second term in the White House.Public polling out of Georgia and Texas show those two states firmly back in the president’s column, after months of concern on both, and Arizona seems to be trending back that way too with a recent Trafalgar Group poll this week showing Trump back in the lead there. 

The Trump campaign feels so confident about Iowa and Ohio, too, that they pulled down television ad buys in both states to focus resources more effectively elsewhere. North Carolina’s public polling has been shifting back Trump’s way, too, all while the Democrats’ U.S. Senate candidate there Cal Cunningham is rocked by a serious sexting scandal that has found him under investigation by the U.S. Army Reserves for the inappropriate relationship with an enlisted serviceman’s wife. 

Public polling out of Maine’s Second District, from the Bangor Daily News, shows the president with a healthy 8 percent lead over Biden. If Trump holds all those plus all the other traditional red states together, he would be at 260 electoral votes and winning just any one of the upper rust belt states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota—would put him over the top of the required 270 electoral votes necessary to win re-election.

[srandhawa21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

1. Criminal Law Reform and the positions/opinions of each Party:

Republican - On the Republican side, Criminal Law Reform is given, but only to a certain people depending on their crime. They look at the bigger picture and state that “every human life matters”. Republicans expect that “the essential role of federal law enforcement personnel in protecting federal property and combating interstate crime should not be compromised by diversion to matters properly handled by states and local authorities”. Also, they see both sides of the story. They mourn for citizens that are treated unfairly due to inequality and they also mourn for officers that have sacrificed their lives to protect out country. Through a Republicans perspective, reform occurs for non-violent offenders only. For example, non-violent people that have committed crimes have options including “community sentencing, accountability courts, drug courts, veterans treatment courts, and guidance by faith based institutions with the proven track records of rehabilitation, our platform emphasized restorative justice to make the victim whole and put the offender on the right path”. Republicans encourage states to capture people and hold them in mandatory prison for people that assault or cause serious injury to law enforcement. They also encourage that people who are locked up have the right to educational resources. Juvenile justice is put first ahead of adult justice in order to break the cycle of crime within a teen. The Republicans have a theory that “tyranny and injustice thrive when America is weakened. The oppressed have no greater ally than a confident and determined United States, backed by the strongest military on the planet”. I would agree with the Republicans Criminal Reform views because I think it is important to keep our country safe from violent offenders that intentionally harm our country but if the offender is non-violent then there are other ways that we can fix a person to make better decisions and get them on a good path to success. Prison time is not going to be beneficial for someone that is hooked on drugs. Proper care and treatment for that individual will help them become sober and create a life that they may have never had the opportunity to have. The Republicans do not mention anything about the wrongdoing that some law enforcement people have done. If we don’t change the fact that police officers have little or no consequence when it comes to murdering another citizens, then this is only going to cause more diversion and inequality within our nation. This is where the Republicans start to go wrong. Although, I do think that they do not pay enough attention to how serious inequality is and how certain people (people of different color, or race) are treated differently to white people. 

Democrat - Democrats believe that our criminal law justice system is “failing” and it needs to be changed from top to bottom. Their beliefs give people more opportunity, but especially for the convicted. They emphasize on the fact that we don't offer the incarcerated a chance to turn their lives around. Instead, this country as of right now wants prisons to be overcrowded and continue to rely on inhumane methods of punishment. Where is the change and reform? With the recognization of police brutality, Democrats think that it is “unacceptable that more than 1,000 people, a quarter of them Black, have been killed by police every year since 2015”. Those numbers will continue to rise unless we seek action and change. On the juvenile justice scale, Democrat's believe that every school should have sufficient funding and resources to employ guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, or school psychologists to help guarantee age-appropriate and racially equitable student disciplinary practices, rather than turning to police and locking them up in juvenile detention facilities. They will encourage federal government to stop incarcerating kids, and create community based alternatives “to prison and detention centers for youth and invest in after-school programs, community centers, and summer jobs to provide opportunities for young people at risk”. They support the ban of chokeholds and carotid holds and permitting deadly force only when necessary to prevent an imminent threat to life. Democrat's believe that we need to change our criminal law reform system from top to bottom meaning, increasing the use of drug courts, harm reduction and interventions, provide treatment diversion programs for those struggling with substance use disorder, eliminate use of cash bail, abolish death penalty, provide rehab, and ensure access to transitional housing for returning citizens (mental health and substance treatment). Democrats also acknowledge the change that needs to happen to all Law enforcement agencies. Changes will include “no-knock warrants”, improve “training and education for judges, corrections officers, prosecutors, public defenders, and police officers to ensure transgender and gender non-conforming people receive fair and equitable treatment in the criminal justice system”, increase diversity among the ranks of police departments, end the use of “private prisons and private detention centers, and will take steps to eliminate profiteering from diversion programs, commercial bail, electronic monitoring, prison commissaries, and reentry and treatment programs”. Personally, I 100% agree with the the Democratic Party. We as a country have NOT had an equal justice system for a long time. The Democrats want to submit a lot of change within our country and I think that everything they plan on doing will be very beneficial. Teaching police officers when to use extreme force and when not to use extreme force is very important. Creating a system where we provide treatment instead of locking people up will be more beneficial to creating a unified nation again. Even on the juvenile justice scale I think that the Democrats are going to do an excellent job. A teens brain isn’t even fully developed for many years because of the frontal lobe with makes teenagers prone to irrational decision making which is why they need support to head on the right path. 

Libertarian - This party believes in constitutional rights meaning they support the constitution. They favor “the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services”. They support that restitution needs to be paid back to the victim that lost x amount fo money or property. The only thing that this party talks about is their view on crime and certain consequences that need to be done to the offender. I did not find anything about my topic which is criminal law reform. They did not talk about what needs to be changed about our criminal justice system. They did not talk about the fact that people are being locked up for the wrong reason. They did not talk about the fact that people with substance abuse should have the right to rehab or some facility to get support. THEY DID NOT MENTION REFORM. I think they didn't mention criminal law reform because it is too controversial and they don’t want to have people that disagree with them. Personally, I think it is a winning tactic to persuade people to vote for them because they didn’t form their own personal views about criminal justice, and criminal law reform. Also, I don't think it is a big enough party for them to go into depth about these topics. 

Green - The Green Party has many requests to reform the criminal justice system. There view is that prisons are being overcrowded, and the fact that our law enforcement places to much emphasis on “drug-related and petty, non-violent crimes, and not enough on prosecution of corporate, white collar, and environmental crime”. They understand that forty percent of those 2.3 million locked down come from America's black one-eighth. The Green Party suggests that in order to reform our criminal justice system we need to abolish death penalty, repeal three strikes laws, establish and fund program to strengthen self-help and community action through neighborhood centers that provide legal aid, alternative dispute-resolution practices, mediated restitution, community team policing, access to local assault care shelters, restrict police use of weapons and restraining techniques such as pepper spray, stun belts, tasers and choke holds, establish freedom on bail as a right of all defendants charged with non-violent crimes. Incorporate mental health and social services in bail agreements, protect victims' rights, ensure the opportunity for victims to make victim-impact statements. Consider forms of restitution to victims, eliminate the gun show loophole that permits sale of weapons without background checks, extend background checks to all private sales of firearms. The Green Party only considers prison time as a “last resort”. Not only do they talk about reform, they also talk about what needs to be done within prisons and jails to make the prisoners more productive during prison life. For example, they want to provide access to education, provide addiction and psychological treatment, and even consider job training while attending a prison. Personally, I agree with this party's position. I think that their opinions to reform the justice system is productive and can create a lot more change within our society. They recognize inequality within our justice system and they want to recognize ALL PEOPLE not just CERTAIN PEOPLE. 

Peace and Freedom - The Peace and Freedom Party believe that “Working class people are the primary victims both of street crime and of police reaction to it. The bosses use laws against victimless activities, "legal" and illegal expansion of police powers, military and paramilitary occupation of poor and minority communities, and diversion of resources to police and jails, to keep workers intimidated and dependent. This party’s idea of reforming our justice system is to abolish death penalty, repeal the three strikes law, stop trials and imprisonment of juveniles as adults, provide rehabilitation, decriminalize victimless activities including drug use and consensual sex. Legalize marijuana, stop unwarranted searches and seizures and restore constitutional rights, prosecute crimes of the wealthy and powerful against workers and the environment, abolish all torture in prisons and uphold prisoner rights. Personally, I agree with the Green Party. I think they lack to understand and publicize the problem of inequality but their forms of reform are great! They want to see less imprisonment and more rehabilitation and change. 

2. I identify with the democrats the most because they seem to recognize most inequality problems and they provide the most reform. I don't think that locking an individual with a drug addiction is smart and rational. I think that for non-violent offenders we need to seek change and reform to build a better nation and give people the benefit of the doubt. Yes I would vote for this presidential candidate. 

3. Yes my civic action was a topic during the debate. Biden did not give a specific plan about what he will do with racial inequality, and injustice. He only tells the American people what he wants to see happen not what he is going to physically do. He politically slanders Trump multiple times, and gives little fact about the issue. He has not done anything to make this issue better. He thinks that a psychiatrist would help a cop calm down to not make irrational decisions like kill someone but a cop's job is to already know these things. You should not be a cop if you are scared of getting hurt. But resulting to violence is not rational. Also, he sees the violent protests and thinks they are peaceful even when people are burning down things, and stealing things from stores. THIS IS NOT PEACEFUL!!! On the other hand, Trump slanders Biden by saying “you call African Americans superpredators”, who knows if this was true or not. Trump did not conduct a plan for decreasing racial justicement, or a treatment for treating inequality but he does make a good point by saying that he has law enforcement on his side and Biden has none. Biden couldn't even admit to have one 1 enforcement support coming to watch him. The difference between Biden and Trump in this situation is that Trump see’s reality and Biden sees fantasy. I don't think that Trump liked the violent protesters where people were going around destroying cities, this does nothing besides cause more violence. These were the things talked about in the presidential debate regarding justice, and reform. Personally, I did not agree with either of the candidates but after me reading the plan for what the Democrats plan to do about criminal law reform I 100% agree with their positions. I don’t think that the debate was constructive in any way shape or form which makes me think that both candidates messages did not support their party platform. Most of the debate was full of arguing, and slandering each candidate rather that respecting both sides. I think Biden did a better job at stating his facts. I think he was very effective at staging his facts based on his arguments, and specific policy plans.

[ramon-balaguer]

Americans have a choice between Keeping America Great by putting God and US first, Protecting our Constitution and Rights from illegal aliens & terrorists like BLM & Antifa through Law & Order with Greatest Military & Economy while saving our Faith and Babies because #AllLivesMatter for President Donald J. Trump or Destroying US with Biden's Socialist Trojan Horse to Rewrite our Constitution and take away our Rights to harbor & support illegal aliens & Terrorist like BLM & Antifa by defunding & disbanding our Police & military with transfer of wealth to worse Trade deal in favor of China & other foreign nations while murdering our babies from inception to births by the millions. Vote ❤️🙏🇺🇸 #REBTD 😇

[theculturedmarxist]

By Anis Shivani, whose recent political books include Why Did Trump Win?, Confronting American Fascism, and A Radical Human Rights Solution to the Immigration Problem. He is the author of many critically-acclaimed books of fiction, poetry, and criticism, including, most recently, A History of the Cat in Nine Chapters or Less

Forcing the March 17 primaries in Florida, Arizona and Illinois to go forward, despite reports of exceedingly low turnout throughout the day (which miraculously and quite expectedly turned into higher turnouts than 2016 in both Florida and Arizona by the time the final reporting came in), was the last straw. This farce occurred despite the Ohio governor postponing their primary on the same day. This slap in the face of voters was then compounded by the even worse parody of the April 7 Wisconsin primary being allowed to go ahead at the peak of the pandemic, with polling stations vastly reduced (from 180 to just 5 in Milwaukee alone) and absentee ballots often not received or recorded, while maintaining the pretense that somehow all of this constituted a legitimate election.

In the middle of the pandemic, with the entire nation considering a de facto lockdown and many communities already there, the DNC was hell-bent on driving the final nail in the coffin of the youth movement, even though the Sanders campaign had suspended GOTV efforts, for obvious reasons, and even if Biden never really had a presence in any of the latest round of states.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, where many polling stations were shut down, in-person turnout was reportedly higher by 10,000 people than in 2016! And that’s just one representative example from the March 17 primary states. Furthermore, the DNC threatened the remaining primary states against postponing their elections for health reasons, preempting moves similar to those made by Louisiana, Georgia and others. The stage is being set for a virtual convention, followed by the possible resurgence of the illness in the fall to orchestrate a virtual general election. Social distancing has come in handily as the most convenient antidote to political solidarity. Biden has already made it clear that he’s not the least bit interested in making any real overtures toward bereft progressives, just as Hillary wasn’t after her forceful seizure of the nomination in 2016.

When they stopped counting the vote in Iowa, depriving the leading candidate of essential momentum, it was a clear indication that once again the party establishment would do everything to manipulate results in favor of yet another neoliberal avatar bound to lose to Trump in an ignominious landslide—which is actually what the Democratic party establishment wants, four more years of their demonized opponent rather than the tiniest return toward social decency. Nothing about the coronavirus changes this essential dynamic.

That’s how bad the Democratic party has become, blatantly tipping the scales toward their favored outcome in order to maintain oligarchic control, and they expect us to Vote Blue No Matter Who?

We’re asked to believe that the candidate who supported ordinary people at the grassroots level all across the country, by lending crucial support to strikesand direct action, spawning innumerable viable candidacies at the local and state levels, and regularly summoning many thousands of people to populist rallies calling for basic human decency, was easily defeated by a cognitively challenged Wall Street shill who has backed every economic and foreign policy barbarity of the last 50 years, and who cannot be put in a small gym with a few dozen people without descending into furious spittles of verbal aggression.

We’re supposed to trust that the candidate with a pervasive national presence for the last five years was suddenly, in a matter of 72 hours, annihilated by the geezer who had zero volunteers, staff or advertising in any of the states he miraculously turned around by 20, 30 or 40 points.

It’s time to put an end to this sham, because we can’t accede to this level of duplicity without ourselves becoming complicit in the madness. Trump essentially terminated the neoliberal Republican party in one election cycle, but because the Democratic party establishment is more entrenched and dangerous, the prime carrier of the neoliberal virus to which the Republicans are just accessories, it is the more difficult enemy to beat.

To recap some of what we have seen from the great minds trying to herd us all into submission toward Hillary 2.0, the dementia version:

·        Herd 29 Trojan horses into the race, all pretending to be some version of or alternative to the clear ideological victor from 2016, and all of them unmasking themselves at appropriate stages of the race (three of them at the last moment before South Carolina) in order to maximize damage to one candidate alone.

·        Insist on a series of parodic debates orchestrating various degrees of hostility toward the lone populist, and focusing outlandish attention on marginal candidates rather than giving the front-runner his due.

·        Engineer the Iowa vote-counting catastrophe without anyone taking responsibility, and DNC chair Tom Perez not only not resigning but feeling empowered to engender further chaos.

·        Repeat all the instances of voter suppression in close simulation of all the 2016 states, as if to thumb their noses at any semblance of voting integrity.

·        Be part of closely coordinated media campaigns harping on electability, centrism and moderation, to the point where the liberal media (the Times, CNN, MSNBC) become indistinguishable from campaign opponents and the party apparatus. For the first three months of the year, the New York Times turned into a chorus of single-minded “Never Bernie” propaganda, exceeding even their “Never Trump” loathing of four years ago.

·        Recruit Barack Obama to save Biden’s hide when he remained the last one standing, with the same ominous figures from 2016 (Jim “there will be no free education” Clyburn, Harry “get the culinary workers to caucus for Hillary” Reid, and others) reprising to the finest detail the same walk-on bits they played last time.

·        Keep changing debate rules, by permitting entry to a last-minute white knight in the form of Michael Bloomberg, and the more recent rule change to prevent Tulsi Gabbard the opportunity of taking down Biden.

·        Keep the option of cheating the delegate leader at the convention alive throughout the campaign, rather than stamping it out as a no-go in order to preserve the credibility of primary voting.

·        Express no displeasure at clear voter suppression in Texas and California, or curiosity about strange exit poll versus final results in Virginia, Massachusetts, Maine and Minnesota, which showed unprecedented swings toward Biden.

Is this enough manipulation for you?

Sanders more than abided by party decorum for the last four years. Ever since he endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later yielded to Chuck Schumer’s request to join the senate leadership, he has been the most faithful of team players, observing every nicety and going along with the party line to the extent that there is no direct contradiction with his principles. The least he could have expected in return was a token amount of fair play, to let his social welfare philosophy compete on equal grounds with neoliberalism, yet this was vehemently denied.

At this point, is he obligated to play by the rules? Are we, if we are to draw obvious conclusions from the evidence at hand?

The Democratic party would much rather see Trump reelected by nominating a flawed neoliberal candidate with as much baggage and who is as associated with the recent Clinton failure as is Biden. Think about it: the party we’re supposed to get behind actually prefers fascism over the mildest concessions to social democracy, in order that the entire power structure might persist unchanged. For the sake of denying the slightest help to poor, debt-burdened, sick and unemployed people, this party would rather have untrammeled white nationalism, immigrants in concentration camps, and accelerated income inequality, as though we could sustain any more of it than we already have.

To defeat a handful of broadly popular proposals to address economic inequality, the Democratic party facilitated the entry of a former Republican mayor who administered the harassment of Muslims and minorities after 9/11, who gave over his city to unaccountable developers and oligarchs, and who happens to be the world’s ninth-richest person—not just a billionaire, of the kind Sanders is railing against, but one 60 times over.

And when that didn’t fly, because of said plutocrat’s manifest misogyny, racism and class privilege, they went back to their original choice, the freewheeling politico Wall Street loves to love, the senator from MBNA, the secret manipulator behind every bad trade deal and Wall Street giveaway and incarceration mania and war of choice of the last 50 years. The party Sanders has chosen to be loyal to knows that either of those candidates, the Manhattan multi-billionaire or the Delaware political enabler, would handily lose to Trump, but the idea is to keep playing the game, to engage us all in a performance that pretends to be even-handed. We wait patiently for health care and public education and a living wage, while we die in the meantime.

The party of death has demonstrated again and again in this primary campaign that its sole objective is to discredit left populism, even if it means abetting the growing dominance of fascist populism. The party we’re supposed to fall behind is the real facilitator, not the Republican party, because it is actively preventing an electable alternative to Trump, as shown in all the polls of the last five years.

The “woke” wing of the Democratic party—which is identical to the neoliberal wing in acting all high-and-mighty toward working-class folks, otherwise known as deplorables—precisely duplicated its machinations from 2016, when Hillary Clinton was said to be the victim of the angry Bernie Bros, a more ridiculous myth than which was never heard in a presidential campaign.

The woke crowd, who universally refused to support Sanders (whose campaign is a sincere homage to the Poor People’s Campaign run by Martin Luther King, Jr., or FDR’s economic bill of rights, or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program), got behind a series of identity politics-driven candidates, culminating in the last one to leave the race, who immediately got busy gaslighting the Sanders movement for its alleged misogyny. The woke wing was a fraud all along, they never did care to help actual working people with actual debilities. We knew it in 2016 and we know it even better now.

All the fallacies the Democratic party has exploited over five decades reached an extreme form of hypocrisy in the 2020 campaign. The least electable candidates were professionally sold as the most electable ones. Extremism on behalf of inequality and deprivation of basic human rights was packaged as moderate centrism. Sustained media campaigns were run against anyone questioning these straitjackets of thought, labeling us enemies of the people for wanting to help the people.

Emerging from his year-long sloth, Biden made it his mission to trash every element of Sanders’s “political revolution,” even in its most benign demands for a level playing field, which was the sum of the political gangsterism he so adeptly deployed at the March 15 debate, knowing he had the full backing of the party in shunning any move toward the kind of universal programs young voters demand.

Would Sanders supporters not be justified in abandoning this zombie party once and for all, if we do not end up with a fair electoral outcome, as it looks like we’re not going to while this primary fizzles out to an uncertain close? Are we not morally obligated to look for an alternative beyond, past and around this failed shell of a party?

In 2004 and again in 2016 they ran empty, fake, invisible campaigns once the primaries were over, with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton literally disappearing from the campaign trail for weeks at a time. They’d rather have Bush reelected then, and Trump reelected now, than raise the minimum wage to $15, make public college free again, or do something to save the planet from its runaway environmental crisis. While Sanders was responding like FDR II to address the public health emergency, Biden was nowhere to be seen.

We learned during this campaign that the all-time great woke candidate beloved of the wine cave class, namely the president upon whose nostalgic fumes we wish to resurrect a ghostly figure, is more willing than anyone else to stop the first stirrings of social democracy and do everything he can to maintain the chokehold of neoliberalism or neofascism.

The clarion call issued by the “Democratic” president of surveillance, wars, deportation and budget cuts appealed to the lowest instincts of career politicians in South Carolina and across the country as they  forcefully jerked us back to where we were supposed to stay. This former president, like the recent troop of candidates, is explicitly against Medicare for All, and every other basic demand this moment of social distress cries out for. Biden and his cronies in the party are willing to go no further than trying to add a public option to the Affordable Care Act; even after the virus escalation, universal programs of the kind Sanders’s movement calls for are nowhere within range of their consideration.

The Democratic party wants to crush the joy and life out of youth, pretending that they don’t come out to vote, and that the entire machinery of politics should be aimed at keeping the country delicately balanced between one half meritocrats and one half deplorables, appealing to a minute number of antiquated voters in Ohio and Florida in order to maintain policy stasis. They gaslight us into thinking that actual social justice aspirants of diverse races and backgrounds, rather than the fake white woke influencers, are the real problem because of our hostility. They impose “party unity” and discipline in the service of continuing the very power structure that has given us unsustainable debt and unaffordability of basic human conveniences. When confronted by enthusiastic participation in Democratic primaries, mainly the responsibility of one Bernard Sanders of Vermont, they counter with the embodiment of the darkest hells of plutocracy, namely Michael Bloomberg. As expected, they have already used the coronavirus crisis to shut down any remaining trace of political idealism, because in this moment of emergency we cannot expect anything better than to bow down to the former president’s faithful old lapdog.

The Democratic party of 2020, after more than 50 years of succumbing to a murderous form of capitalism, is not just a flawed vehicle for any sort of political renaissance. Why should we legitimize them by leaping around their phantom carousel, wearing colorful costumes and clown hats on the fairgrounds, when they won’t give us a ticket, when they tear it up if we do have one, and when there’s always a guard hanging around to bash our skulls in case we utter a cry of joy at some little win?

They are all but compelling us to leave the party. Will we have the imagination to do so at last in a mass exodus?

[alexsmitposts]

Blind Faith, Subterfuge and not “Real Issues” will decide US Presidential Elections Voter behaviour is not really so complicated. I once even took a course in it; about all that I can remember is that the “incumbent and name recognition is all that really matters” in getting re-elected, especially for a US President. Regardless of who is the pick for vice president, or whether or not Joe Biden is a Republican at heart with a bad case of both venality and dementia and Trump cannot make truthful statements, the November election is therefore kind of a “toss up”—at least at first impression. Trump is larger than life, whether or not that is a good thing. This worked in his favour last time round, as the outsider candidate against the tainted Hillary Clinton, pillar of the political establishment, the sort who gives representing a relatively left-leaning party a bad name. But this time the US is not electing a new president, it is holding what is effectively a referendum on the incumbent. In 2016 the primary motivation was voting either FOR Trump or FOR Hillary. This time a significant portion of the population will be voting AGAINST Trump, just because it’s him, and his main task will be get these people to stay at home, rather than vote for Biden, even if they have to hold their noses to do so. But with so many Republicans having a problem with Trump, and Democrats having a problem with Sloppy Joe Biden, there will be less interest in engaging WITH, rather than AGAINST, either candidate. If voters act on hate alone, Biden will walk it. But the long campaigning season will probably end with a weary populace ignoring the real issues and voting on the basis of blind faith – that regardless of things like issues and facts, someone, somehow, is going to make their lives better before the whole political system collapses around them. Schoolyard Bully I am dumbfounded at how Trump can blatantly and unapologetically pander to Christians and they eat it up!!! He is reported to have made a statement that if the states don’t open the churches this weekend there will be consequences!!! Trump has many supporters in the South, where they are keen on States´Rights. But Facebook and other social media sites are repeating his nonsense, and throwing their endorsement to Trump. Maybe the man is the genius he says he is after all. He is definitely playing them – what can Facebook do, censor Trump or claim that such statements go against community standards? He has been a genius at one thing for his entire life – getting his own way, and just for the hell of it, regardless of what is right or well-advised. Like the rich kid who learns how to twist his parents in knots, Trump is godlike in his ability to manipulate. He will use any trick in the book, and make up some new ones. This may end up being what the election is actually about. The more Trump lies and cheats and gets away with it, the more the disadvantaged and the crooked, who have fallen by the wayside when playing by the rules, will think he offers hope. The rest of America will then decide whether that is really the world they want to live in for the next four years, in the midst of a succession of crises they often have wilfully unreal ideas about to begin with. As one new American, before the new immigration rules set in, shared, “Trump is not that evil; I don’t think he is Godlike. He is just a compulsive dude with a character. He is simple but knows how to bargain for profits. Why everyone is after him, it’s funny; I have never seen Americans liking their president ever, as they like Trump.” Us against them Versus them against Us Of course this means Trump won’t campaign by the rules either. Other people made those rules, the same people many Americans blame for taking away their jobs and being soft on their enemies. Trump will do whatever he has to do, whatever the cost, ignoring little things like the Constitution, Rule of Law and facts.His latest stunt is to question whether Biden’s VP running mate is qualified to stand for the office, based on her parent’s origins. That is really catering to his base, as he knows only too well that she is in no way disqualified for the office, but many people wish she was. Barack Obama was subject to so much rumour about his own origins that he actually displayed his birth certificate (saying Honolulu, Hawaii, 4th August 1961, i.e. after it had become part of the US) at a press conference. These allegations were never based on fact, but allowed some voters to dress up prejudice as hoped-for fact. Trump joined these allegations, saw they worked, and has been finding new ways to make prejudice seem justified ever since. Constitutional law experts say Harris’ parents are beside the point. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all people born in the US, and Article II Section 1 of the Constitution says that to be eligible for the vice presidency and presidency a candidate must be natural-born US citizen, at least 35, and a resident of the United States for a minimum of 14 years. But the Constitution embodies the establishment, and Trump doesn’t consider himself part of it. Many of his supporters feel betrayed by it, their needs and values having been relegated to secondary status, or worse, because they and their friends were never asked to write the Constitution. Trump has lied to his base like he has lied to everyone else. He does it every day, shamelessly. Remember building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, incarcerating Hillary, paying off the debt and stopping wars, let alone the more recent ones about COVID-19 response. But what is escaping critical attention is that the current man in the White House represents the character and morals of the masses of people who make up the country. They won’t admit openly to being everything America pretends it isn’t, which is why Trump is being hammered in the polls, but they will be voting in mass for his re-election. Their core values are the same: family, Church, flag and job security, as if these are the answer to everything in themselves, no actual performance or policy is needed. The vast majority of these voters must feel that they are now being taken care of—for most that means less government, affordable education and healthcare. If Trump makes an about-turn, such as introducing Medicare for all at a price, he will be hoeing in high cotton as the presidential election nears. Blind faith in the system versus blind faith in anything other than the system may not be the best choice to have, as countries which have had revolutions understand. But both sides are gambling that this is how the voters will see it, and that they will choose their faith over the other, and then prosecute it for four years with the same religious fervour so that reality doesn’t come and bite too hard. Bubbling under the Radar Trump may support a small state, but he did a clever move extending Federal Unemployment benefits by executive order, albeit not to the previous level of 600 dollars per week on top of any State benefit. He realised that he had no time to waste, especially in the wake of the economic havoc of COVID-19. Congress went on recess so as not to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, as they knew there was going to be too much pork included in any legislation they would attempt to pass. This could be interpreted as meaning they were outsmarted by Donald Trump, and only one such victory will embolden his supporters to believe there will be many more, which they will interpret as victories for them. Trump’s base of support has closed ranks even more over his monument policy, which makes it a crime to tear down historic monuments. One cannot trash history just because times have changed. I may not like your monument, but let’s talk about it. When the first Democratic debates were held Joe Biden was not most people’s first choice, but I wondered if he had the best chance, since he was old and white and had been VP under Obama. This claim to fame would help him gain the black vote en masse, or so he thought. But this has become a moot issue since Biden scolded black leaders, claiming they would not be black if they voted for Trump. That did not go over well with a voter group which as a whole finds Trump a lowlife, but does not expect to be lectured by a senile “old honky”.Blacks also realised long ago that if they have an equally strong voice within both parties they are more likely to be heard, not taken for granted by the one they support and then ignored, because electorally not worth the effort, by the other. If Biden doesn’t get that, how many other voter groups will he risk alienating between now and November? Biden is the sort of Democrat blacks once deserted his party for being full of – a scion of white privilege, darling of War on Crime (meaning war on blacks, as is Harris), closet racist and blind servant of Wall Street and the Military-Industrial Complex. Maybe this is the real reason he is supposedly polling ahead of Trump in key Electoral College States, even Ohio. However, those with not-so-short memories will remember that the last round of polls before the 2016 election gave Hillary Clinton a commanding lead, and the DNC and mainstream media were so confident of her success they had already printed up the front pages of the newspapers announcing her victory. What makes the pollsters so confident that they will not be even more wrong this time? Trump bashing Biden’s policies and the Democratic National Committee’s platform may soon take all the wind out of Biden’s sails, precisely because it is so easy to bash Trump that it has less effect on the voters. Trump’s policy of America First is also proving consistent, and this is the one campaign promise few people expected him to keep. This does put Trump in the small category of politicians who actually keep their promises, however ironic that is. The return of no point As for the election, only God knows what will happen.It is perfectly possible that the Deep State controls the voting machines by now and the mail-in ballots too!Democrats in Florida are still protesting about the voting machines used there when George W. Bush beat Al Gore by a tiny margin. As James Baker pointed out at the time, they tested the machines before the election and had no complaints. So either there was nothing wrong with the machines, or the count was distorted by those machines. I know which one my money is on. What people are not willing to wake up and accept is that America needs another system, not the two party system, aswhich now supposedly exists. It is an illusion that Republican and Democrat are the only choices, when members of these two parties stay in Congress for decades and little if anything changes. In 1905 Mark Twain wrote his War Prayer, a short story or prose poem described as “a scathing indictment of war, particularly of blind patriotic and religious fervour as motivations for war.” In the days of the Vietnam War, when both war and politics had meaning, this was seen as sarcasm. Now it is a commentary on what the US political system has become, because people are incapable of engaging with real issues because they do not wish to know the truth about their country.

[reading-writing-revolution]

Heather Cox Richardson

April 13, 2020 (Monday)

It might be fair to say that today’s events started on Saturday, when the New York Times published an in-depth examination of “Trump’s Failure on the Virus,” with the heading: “He Could Have Seen What Was Coming.” Six reporters dug into emails, interviews, documents, and reports to reveal that “the president was warned about the potential for a pandemic” beginning in January, “but that internal divisions, lack of planning and his faith in his own instincts led to a halting response.”

Also this weekend, Trump vowed to “reopen” the country, despite warnings from his public health advisors that ending measures to slow the rate of coronavirus infection could be deadly. He is eager to restart the economy, the health of which he sees as key to his reelection, by May 1. On Sunday night, he tweeted: "Governors, get your states testing programs & apparatus perfected. Be ready, big things are happening. No excuses! The Federal Government is there to help. We are testing. More than any country in the World. Also, gear up with Face Masks!" (We are not testing more than any country in the world.)

But while the president can order federal workers back to their jobs, decisions about state closures and public health belong to state governments, not the president, and state governors have been saying so. This morning, Trump tweeted: “For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect…. It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons.” He has said that he would announce his “Opening the Country” economic task force Tuesday.

Alarmed at Trump’s repeated insistence that the nation needs to end the physical distancing that has slowed Covid-19, state governors on both the east and west coasts announced today they have made pacts to work as a unit to manage the return to normalcy “in a safe, strategic, responsible way,” based on facts and science, as California Governor Gavin Newsom put it. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut in the East, and California, Washington, and Oregon in the West, have agreed to cooperate, and they have invited other states to join them.

This was a huge shot across Trump’s bow. He repeatedly told governors they were on their own to manage the coronavirus then set up a system in which the federal government often seized their supplies when they tried to do so. Last week, Newsom made it clear he was through trying to work with Trump. He referred to California as a nation-state and suggested he would work with other states to get medical supplies. Now states are organizing to operate without the president.

When he gave his briefing today, Trump was visibly angry at both the New York Times story and at the governors’ pact. He began by playing a video for the reporters that celebrated his handling of the coronavirus crisis and blamed the media for downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic in its early days. CBS News reporter Paula Reid pointed out “Your video had a complete gap. What did your administration do in February…?” She refused to let up. He called her fake. With 23,000 Americans dead from the coronavirus—that have been officially counted; many more are dying without an official diagnosis—Trump refused to admit he had made a single mistake. Instead, he blamed his predecessor, President Barack Obama, for the lack of masks in the strategic national stockpile and the lack of testing kits and insisted, “I saved tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Then he took on the question of whether he or the governors got to reopen the states. Trump repeatedly asserted that right was his, and his alone. “When somebody is President of the United States,” Trump said, “the authority is total.” When a reporter asked what provisions of the Constitution gives the president the power to open or close state economies, he could not name one, but answered: “Numerous—numerous provisions. We can give you a legal brief if you want.” “The federal government has absolute power. It has the power. As to whether or not I'll use that power -- we'll see ... I have the absolute right if I want to.” Trump's repeated assertion of dictatorial power actually sounded desperate to me, as if he were trying to regain control of the governors. Trump does not, in fact, have the power to do anything he is asserting, and his bluster will not hold up unless the governors relent. Trump repeatedly emphasized that he had a great relationship with the state governors, and was hoping to be able to work with them.

There were other bad signs for the president today, too. The evening before last week’s election in Wisconsin, the US Supreme Court ruled that the election must go forward despite the fact that many absentee ballots had not been delivered and that the virus had forced closures of the majority of polling places in Democratic districts. At stake was a contested seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which will be deciding a key voter suppression case before the 2020 election. Wisconsin Republicans had worked hard to tilt the playing field to throw the election to their candidate. They failed. The Republican incumbent Daniel Kelly, appointed by Republican Governor Scott Walker and endorsed by Trump, lost badly to Democratic challenger Jill Karofsky. While the court will keep its conservative majority, Karofsky will likely help to kill the voter suppression measure. The triumph of a Democrat in this election, despite all the efforts to rig it, should worry Trump.

So should the fact that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders today endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president. Sanders will have gotten concessions from Biden just as other candidates did, which should help the process of building a broad coalition for the Democrats in 2020. Also troublesome for the Republicans in 2020 is that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has signed laws to expand voting in his state. Higher voting numbers help Democrats. "Voting is a fundamental right, and these new laws strengthen our democracy by making it easier to cast a ballot, not harder," Northam said. "No matter who you are or where you live in Virginia, your voice deserves to be heard."

The Supreme Court announced today it will hear the cases concerning Trump’s finances after all. The justices were supposed to hear oral arguments in March on the question of whether the president and his financial advisors must obey subpoenas from the House of Representatives and a New York prosecutor. Trump is arguing that a president cannot be investigated for criminal activity while in office. The case got postponed by the pandemic, but it’s now back on the table.

And finally, today NPR followed up the New York Times article with an investigation of how successful Trump has been in fulfilling the promises he made a month ago when he declared a national emergency to fight the spreading infections. It concluded that those promises were largely unfilled. Tonight the White House responded to the story, saying that the president had taken “bold and decisive actions” to lead the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.

---

Also available as a free newsletter at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

[tapaspaul16-blog]

WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY 2019

Human Rights Day is celebrated annually across the world on 10th December. The date was chosen to honour the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption and proclamation, on 10th December 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first global enunciation of human rights. The commemoration was established in 1950, when the General Assembly invited all states and interested organizations to celebrate the day as they saw fit. Many governmental and nongovernmental organizations active in the human rights schedule special events to commemorate the day.

Human rights may be said to be those fundamental rights to which every man or woman inhabiting in any part of the world should be deemed entitled merely by virtue of having been born a human being.

WORLD HUMAN RIGHTS DAY,2019:-

71 st Human Rights Day will be celebrated this year on 10th December Tuesday. The country will commemorate human rights month under the theme:- “The Year Of Indigenous Languages: promoting And Deepening A Human Rights Culture”

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION:-

Since human rights cover people all over the world irrespective of their social, cultural, racial, ethnic, religious and communal differences, it is natural that they have become a matter of international and multinational concern in the present century.

The charter of the United Nations framed in 1945 underscored the principle of individual human rights. The merit of the charter is that it affirms faith in fundamental human rights, in the worth and dignity of the human person, in equality of persons of all nations and its resolve to promote social progress and better standard of life.

On 16 February, 1946, the Security Council of the United Nations set up a Commission on Human Rights under the chairmanship of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt to prepare the text of the Declaration. The Commission did its job and the General Assembly adopted it on 10 December, 1948. Known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it contains a long list of civil or social, political, economic and cultural rights as equality before law, protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, right to a fair trial, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of conscience and religion, right to own property, prohibition of slavery and inhuman treatment, right to public hearing, right to own nationality, right to marry and keep family, right to vote, right to social security, right to free education and free participation in cultural life, right to rest and leisure, and above all, prohibition of any activity, against this Declaration.

Three More Declarations:-

On 16 December, 1966 the General Assembly of the UN adopted three more declarations in the form of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. It was a. positive step in the direction of giving protection to the case of human rights. The covenant on economic, social and cultural rights imposed on the member-states the duty to submit reports on their progress in the protection of human rights. Human Rights in India Fundamental human rights in the sense of civil liberties with their modern attributes and overtones are, however, a development more or less parallel to the growth of constitutional government and parliamentary ‘institutions from the time of British rule in India. Right from its inception in 1885, the Indian National Congress  struggled for the rights of the Indian people. The early moderate leaders appreciated British sense of justice and fair play, they also criticized the alien rule for depriving the Indian people the rule of law that prevailed in England.

In 1897, Surendranath Banerjee denounced the British rule on the ground that while it prided itself on the Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus, it denied to the Indian people the inestimable right to personal liberty. At the call of Mahatma Gandhi, the people of the country went on strike against the Rowlett Act of 1919 that became the cause of the tragedy of the Jallianwala Bagh of Amritsar on 13 April 1919. All great leaders like Motilal Nehru, Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, C.R. Das etc. strongly argued for the rights of the Indian people and condemned the British rule for depriving the people of the rule of law in our country:’

The list of fundamental rights to be incorporated into the Constitution of India found its conspicuous place in the Nehru Report of 1928. It included (a) personal liberty, (b) freedom of conscience and profession and practice of religion subject to public order or morality, (c) equality before law, (d) right of every citizen to Habeas Corpus, (e) no discrimination in matters of public employment, (f) equality of rights in matters of sex etc. The declaration of complete independence adopted by the Congress at its Lahore session in 1929 said: “It is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life so that they may have full opportunities of growth.

The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1948 had its definite impact on the making of the Indian Constitution. The makers incorporated a host of such rights in part III of the Constitution relating to equality, freedom, non-exploitation, religion, education and culture, and constitutional remedies.

Moreover, the Constitution has empowered the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue prerogative writs for the Protection and enforcement of these rights termed as Fundamental Rights’. Some rights, which could not be accommodated in Part III, have been put into Part IV of the 

Constitution termed as Directive Principles of State Policy. The point of distinction between the two parts is that while the former is mandatory and justifiable, the latter is not. It is well commented: “The two parts of the Constitution-the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles between them covered almost the entire field of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Parliament and Human Rights by S.C. Kashyap)

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION:-

National Human Rights Commission However, the most important development in this regard is the creation of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on 12 October 1993. In pursuant of the implementation of one of the promises given in the election manifesto of 1991 and also keeping in view the urgency of the matter in the light of wild allegations and propaganda of Pakistan and America, including some non-governmental agencies as the Amnesty International and the Asia Watch about gross violation of human rights in Punjab, Kashmir, and some other parts of the country, the Government of India thought it expedient to set up such a body in the national interest through an ordinance promulgated by the President on 28 September 1993 which became an Act in the following year. This body has a statutory status, given by the protection of Human Rights Act,1993(TPHRA)

FUNCTION:-

1. The functions of the NHRC are as under:

2. To inquire on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person in this behalf into complaints of violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant;

3. To intervene in any proceedings involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such courts;

4. To visit, under intimation to the state government, any jailor any other institution under the control of the state government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon;

5. To review the safeguards provided under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;

6. To review the factors, including use of terrorism, that inhabits the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures; The Commission has the power to visit or enter a place for the seizure or recovery of some important documents or information as it deems necessary for the purposes of prosecuting an inquiry and it may request the services of the staff of Central or state governments.

No doubt, the establishment of the NHRC is a bold and momentous step taken by Government of India. Nevertheless, a critic may fear that it would not be able to discharge its functions effectively due to some limitations.

First, it cannot look into the complaints of torture and harassment done by the armed forces. Second, it has not been Provided with its own machinery of investigation. For such a task, it Would depend upon the staff of the Central and state governments who may not be prompt and impartial in helping, in a situation where their brethren are involved. Last, in the main, its functions are of a recommendatory nature. It may approach the Central or state government or the Supreme Court and the High Courts without having the power to do something of its own, in according relief to the victims of atrocities.

Indisputable is the fact that India’s stand in respect of the protection of human rights has been quite straightforward. Several non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International and Asia Watch operating at the international level sought to tarnish it for the sake of their vested interests. Ours is an open society with a democratic system. For this reason such atrocities cannot be done in our country by the police, paramilitary and military forces as we find in China and Pakistan. Stray cases of ‘State terrorism’ may not be ruled out. It is a fact that some authorities misused the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act. However, the draconian law lapsed on 23 May 1995. At the same time, it should not be lost sight of that the excesses were only stray cases.

Thus, we may safely endorse the view of the Nobel Peace Laureate, H.B. the Dalai Lama: “In India there may be stray outbursts of human rights violations. These tend to occur in comparatively isolated pockets where extremists and terrorists themselves engage in acts that violate human rights. There is genuine freedom in this country and a healthy flourishing democracy, India can truly take pride in this.”

-:HUMAN RIGHTS DAY QUOTES:-

“The real struggle for us is for the citizen to cease to be the property of the state.”

“Many of us persons of the tinted persuasion care about human rights and artistic freedom too.”

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.”

“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

“Laws are silent in times of war.”

“Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.”

“Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must — at that moment — become the centre of the universe.”

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

“We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I’d thought.”

“No matter how pathetic or pitiful, every human is fated to have one moment in their lives in which they can change their own destiny.”

“Please use your freedom to promote ours.”

“The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don’t agree with.”

“Today’s human rights violations are the causes of tomorrow’s conflicts.”

“We believe that human rights transcend boundaries and must prevail over state sovereignty.”

“An injustice committed against anyone is a threat to everyone.”

“Together we can prevent genocide from happening again. Together we can make a better future for our children.”

-:THEME OF HUMAN RIGHTS DAY OF LAST FEW YEARS:-

Human Rights Day is celebrated with a special theme every year and the main purpose of these themes are to raise awareness amongst the people and to convey the message about the importance of Human Rights.

*Theme of 2012 was “Inclusion and the right to participate in public life” and “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”

*Theme of 2013 was “20 Years: Working for Your Rights”

*Theme of 2014 was “Celebrating 20 years of changing lives through Human Rights”

*Theme of 2015 was “Our Rights. Our Freedoms. Always”

*Theme of 2016 was “Stand up for someone’s rights today”

*Theme of 2017 was “Let’s stand up for equality, justice and human dignity”

*Theme of 2018 was “Stand Up For Human Rights”

*Theme of 2019 is ,“The Year Of Indigenous Languages: promoting And Deepening A Human Rights Culture”

[democraticfuture]

I dipped into some of Trump’s speech in Michigan and couldn’t stop watching. It was like a train wreck. Here’s a break down if you want to read about the crazy.

He talked about his 2016 victory and how no one thought he could win Michigan. He railed against the media. He praised, by name, several Fox News hosts. He called out the intelligence community. He talked about how elite he was (school, homes, etc.). He said Democrats shouldn’t investigate him. He talked about how he is building the wall (spoiler: he’s not). He complained about Jussie Smollett and Chicago. He said the Republican Congressmen in the audience got bad seats while thanking them (for something?). He had BREAKING news that he likes lakes (after his budget cut funding to the Great Lakes region)? He bashed the freshly elected Democratic Governor of Michigan for I guess.... also liking lakes? He said his rich friend shouldn’t be shy and that the people of Michigan probably don’t like him because he owns more land the people in the audience (it was weird). Then asked his rich friend how much money he made this month. He talks about how smart people are for investing in the stock market, ignoring that almost half of Americans don’t own stock or have 401(k)s. He has a weird story about how wives must be loving their husbands for their smart investments? Socialism bashing! Some economic numbers, clearly read from prompter. He lies about how he did great with women in 2016 (he didn’t). Talks about cutting regulation. Russia hates him (lol), but Russia is doing fine. Windmills are dumb because you can’t watch TV if there’s no wind. Hypes up his unpopular tax cuts. Talks about how some people hate their children and won’t leave them their businesses (estate tax). Told everyone about how he’s trying to kill Obamacare in the courts. Throws shade at John McCain. “The Republican Party will become the party of great healthcare. It’s good. It’s good.” Hypes up his junk health plans. More socialism bashing. Criticizes Obama’s “You can keep your doctor” line from like 10 years ago. Says people don’t care about their deductibles? Says he will protect people with preexisting conditions (while suing to eliminate laws doing just that). Talks about the VA (while unknowingly arguing for Medicare for All). Praises veterans five minutes after throwing shade at veteran John McCain. Worked in a “You’re fired!”. Criminal justice reform. Democrats have an “agender” of resistance and radicalism. Repeats “resist” a bunch of times for some reason. Apparently doesn’t know what resist means? Lies about the Green New Deal (no more cows! One care per family? Electric cars suck!). How would you get to Europe? NOBODY KNOWS! Kavanaugh and Gorsuch shout outs! Throws shade a Senator Mazie Hirono (Hawaii). Talks about how he “violently” attacked Elizabeth Warren, declaring her candidacy dead. Back to manufacturing (which was DEAD when he took over but he saved it). Mexico needs to do more to protect our border. CATCH AND RELEASE! VISA LOTTERY! Call back to Mexico is sending us criminals and rapists. CARAVANS! Threatening Mexico? Apparently we’re going to shut down the entire southern border (lololol). Closing the border means JOBS. It’s all very simple. Trans-Pacific Partnership slam! NAFTA slam! I guess there’s empty factories all over the place even though he’s bring back the jobs? Continues to show that he has no idea what trade deficits are. Talks about USMCA without giving any details about it, threatens to withdraw from NAFTA as leverage. Hypes up his tariffs. I guess there’s a chicken tax or something? You would think the only kind of jobs America has is manufacturing. He tells everyone that he’s fighting with the unions and GM. Back to the borders and extremist Democrats who want open borders and crime. Immigrant criminals are invading. Now we’re talking about how drugs are smuggled across the border and people are dying and you can’t believe the official numbers. Proud to have vetoed a bipartisan condemnation of his national emergency. Somehow House Republicans gave him money to build the wall? He’s going to a certain place (shhh its a secret) to show the people some of his brand new wall. 2020 is gonna be easier than 2016. He’s 1 for 1 in elections! He’s never debated but he was always center stage! He never said he was going to create jobs? Back to the border and Democrats. 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! He’s gonna give us a question: lowest unemployment rate for African Americans! (wait...) He did a good job during his first election. 2020 will be easy. Democrats caused the border crises so they can get votes. Democrats want AMNESTY! Lawyers are helping refugees who all look like heavy weight champions. Sanctuary cities aren’t protecting borders. Its not the money! Walls work. Call it whatever you want but he called it a wall and he got the money anyway. 4,000 troops at our border and they’re fantastic. We're defending other countries' borders but not our own! We love ICE. Donald Trump likes making cars. Immigrant statistics. Democrats want to get rid of very tough people at ICE. Democrats want to set violent offenders free. ICE and border patrol are HEROES. We're throwing immigrants in jail or out of our country! MS-13. Democrats want to kill babies. Democrats love taxes, abortion, hoaxes and delusions. Republicans are the party of real Americans. Promises Made, Promises Kept! Talks about his pointless college campus free speech order. The American military is more powerful than ever. Withdrew us from Iran nuclear deal and now Iran is a different country. Opened the American embassy in Jerusalem and recognized the Golan Highs as part of Isreal (“very important, very important”). Venezuela is a mess. Constitution and Rule of Law! Dignity of Work and Sanctity of Life! Faith and Family! Religious Liberty! Free Speech! The right to keep and bear arms! Children should be taught to love their country and to respect the flag. USA! USA! USA! We're not changing the words of the national motto. Back to the 2016 election; it was the most exciting campaign in the history of the country. It was a historic day. We're getting out of foreign wars. They stood up to the rigged power structure in DC and he won't forget it and they will be very proud. They took back their country. TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! Donald Trump is loyal to them. Michigan will never be forgotton ever again (does Flint have clean water yet?). We're winning so big and nobody ever thought it could happen. We're going to take a beautiful stand. The people of Michigan are inspiring and we're going to make American wealthy. America is strong again. America is safe again. America is GREAT AGAIN. Then he walks out to creepy music.