#this is your reminder that state court justices are an elected position

[vyeoh]

(The Washington Post)

For those who don't know, the US Supreme Court just ruled that states are allowed to enforce trans healthcare for minors. Undoubtedly, this will trigger a wave of other states that either hope to pass or have already passed policies to do the same. This is going to kill children, and harm more in long-lasting ways.

So, how can you help?

FUCKING VOTE. I don't care if you don't like Biden, he's not the only one on the ballot. Vote representatives into your city council who will turn our city into a sanctuary city. Vote for governors and state reps who will, even if they don't pass new protections, oppose bans being pushed through. Chsllenge and kick out conservative incumbents who are banking on their races being obscure enough for people to not vote in.

Anyone telling you voting is useless is either lying to you or grossly uninformed and think saying this is the edgy new take that will make them look hip and informed. Yes, the system is broken. But short of burning the whole thing to the ground (which personally I'm not a fan of as I quite enjoy having like. Roads and the FDA) what we can do is to change it for the better, by starting with the local races and working our way up.

[vyorei]

I got distracted with this email set up I found, I'm dropping it here for you all

Take these emails:

j.donoghue@icj-cij.org; K.GEVORGIAN@icj-cij.org; p.tomka@icj-cij.org; r.abraham@icj-cij.org; m.bennouna@icj-cij.org; a.yusuf@icj-cij.org; h.xue@icj-cij.org; j.sebutinde@icj-cij.org; d.bhandari@icj-cij.org; p.robinson@icj-cij.org; n.salam@icj-cij.org; y.iwasawa@icj-cij.org; g.nolte@icj-cij.org; h.charlesworth@icj-cij.org; l.brant@icj-cij.org

Take this subject:

South Africa VS Israel in the ICJ.

Take this letter:

Dear Madam President and esteemed panel of Judges,

I hope this message finds you well and resolute. My name is [your name], I am a concerned citizen of [your country]. I am reaching out to you with a sense of urgency and sincere apprehension which prompts me to break my customary silence.

I have always held the belief that individuals in positions of authority, such as yourself, harbour the best interests of humanity at heart. However, recent developments in the Middle East and the global response to them have stirred doubt in my convictions, compelling me to express my concerns directly to you.

As I explored the International Court of Justice's website, I took solace in the fact that it consists of "independent judges, elected regardless of their nationality from among persons of high moral character." With this understanding, I address you regarding the impending South Africa v. Israel matter, the provisional measures hearing of which is scheduled for Thursday, 11th and Friday, 12th January 2024.

I am sure that you are acutely aware of the gravity of the case before you, and I believe that your ability to discern the truth, resist external pressures, and deliver a just judgment is foremost on your mind. The Genocide Convention, a cornerstone of international law, was established in 1948 as a commitment to 'never again' allow atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazi’s in WW2. 152 states out of 194 nations of the world honourably signed up to the convention. It is a testament to our parents and grandparents that their generations committed to a set of standards that constitute the basic principles of right and wrong, which underpin the fabric of the world we live in and form the basis of the lives most of us are lucky enough to lead.

The very fact that the responsibility of adjudicating on this case has fallen upon your shoulders underscores a disheartening truth – the failure of existing systems of checks and balances within the international community. It is disconcerting that national interests have tainted the operations of our global systems, allowing the mass killing of civilians to persist without intervention. I find this reality appalling, as do countless citizens around the world who have expressed their horror through protests on the streets of cities across the globe.

The upcoming case is a litmus test for humanity's commitment to the solemn pledge of 'Never Again.' Generations have been educated about the horrors of the Holocaust, and this case challenges us to live up to the principles we profess. It is a stark reminder that the values we hold dear are being tested in real-time, with devastating consequences.

In March 2022, the International Court of Justice ordered Russia to immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine and ensure that affiliated units take no further steps in furtherance of the military operations. Despite this intervention, an estimated 10,000 civilians have tragically lost their lives in Ukraine since Russia's military operation in 2022. Moreover, and by comparison, the death toll in Gaza has already surpassed 22,000 since October 2023, with a staggering 70% of the victims being women and children.

In an age where mainstream media faces scepticism due to perceived biases, the global community has been witness to Israel's actions in real-time through various social media platforms such as Twitter, TikTok, and Telegram.

We find ourselves in a world where trust in global institutions is eroding rapidly. The International Court of Justice, in particular, cannot afford to make an erroneous judgment in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case. A misjudgement in this matter would not only underscore the ICJ's ineffectiveness but also prompt scrutiny regarding its autonomy from nation-state political influences, potentially compromising the esteemed moral character of the individuals involved.

In 1945 we celebrated Winston Churchill as the leader that brought the world together in war to put-down the threat of Nazi Germany and the horror it inflicted. That war claimed over 50 million lives. We do not wish to celebrate a wartime hero again; we wish to celebrate new heroes who averted a war by presiding over justice without fear or favour.

I humbly beseech you to approach this case with the utmost diligence, impartiality, and commitment to justice. The eyes of the world are upon you, and the outcome of this particular case will reverberate through history, shaping perceptions of the ICJ's impartiality and moral standing.

Yours sincerely,

[your name]

Email that shit and do your part, we are fucking obligated as living beings on this planet.

[rainbowsinthesea]

URGENT: Please email your MPs using the above link, you just need your name, address and postcode. Pressure the UK to vote for a Ceasefire. If you are not a British citizen please share this.

"On Wednesday 21st February, parliament will vote on whether or not to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. There is no acceptable excuse for MPs to do anything but vote in favour of this. The ongoing slaughter in Gaza is insufferable. As your constituent, I remind you that we are in an election year - and that the public are closely monitoring how MPs will vote on Wednesday. This is an issue close to the heart of the electorate, and I urge you and your colleagues to do everything in your power to end Israel's massacre of Palestinians. Well over 28,000 Palestinians have now been killed - almost half of them children. The entire population is living with crisis-level hunger. Over 70% of buildings and infrastructure has been destroyed. The International Court of Justice has ruled there's a plausible case that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians, and has ordered legally binding provisional measures to stop the killing and ensure humanitarian assistance is provided. Third states - such as the UK - have a legal obligation to uphold these orders. This can only be achieved by supporting an immediate and permanent ceasefire now, which I ask you to vote for on Wednesday. Shamefully, the position of the UK has instead been to continue supplying Israel with weapons - in clear contravention of its own Strategic Export Licensing Criteria given that the highest court in the world has ruled there's plausible evidence Israel is committing genocide. The government has also chosen to suspend funding to UNRWA, the principle international agency providing humanitarian aid and upholding the rights of Palestinian refugees. This couldn't be more urgent. I ask you to take immediate action by:

Voting for an immediate ceasefire on Wednesday 21st February, and against any amendments that seek to water down this urgent demand.

Calling on the government to suspend all arms sales to Israel, and begin steps to end the bilateral arms trade.

Demanding the government reinstates funding to UNRWA, and increases UK aid to Gaza.

I would appreciate a response on how you will vote on Wednesday."

[okaysional]

So, I emailed my MP ahead of the vote on the 21st, I used the template to state what needed to be done to and asked to be responded to about what their decision would be. My E-mail was as follows

Dear [Name] MP, On Wednesday 21st February parliament will vote on whether or not to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. There is no acceptable excuse for MPs to do anything but vote in favour of this. The ongoing slaughter in Gaza is insufferable and as inhumane an act as we have ever seen carried out on a civilisation of people. As your constituent, I remind you that we are in an election year - and that the public are closely monitoring how MPs will vote on Wednesday. This is an issue close to the heart of the electorate, and I urge you and your colleagues to do everything in your power to end Israel's massacre of Palestinians. Well over 28,000 Palestinians have now been killed - almost half of them children. The entire population is living with crisis-level hunger. Over 70% of buildings and infrastructure has been destroyed. The International Court of Justice has ruled there's a plausible case that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians, and has ordered legally binding provisional measures to stop the killing and ensure humanitarian assistance is provided. Third states - such as the UK - have a legal obligation to uphold these orders. This can only be achieved by supporting an immediate and permanent ceasefire now, which I ask you to vote for on Wednesday. Shamefully, the position of the UK has instead been to continue supplying Israel with weapons - in clear contravention of its own Strategic Export Licensing Criteria given that the highest court in the world has ruled there's plausible evidence Israel is committing genocide. The government has also chosen to suspend funding to UNRWA, the principle international agency providing humanitarian aid and upholding the rights of Palestinian refugees. This couldn't be more urgent. I ask you to take immediate action by: Voting for an immediate ceasefire on Wednesday 21st February, and against any amendments that seek to water down this urgent demand. Calling on the government to suspend all arms sales to Israel, and begin steps to end the bilateral arms trade. Demanding the government reinstates funding to UNRWA, and increases UK aid to Gaza. I would appreciate a response on how you will vote on Wednesday. There is no single acceptable excuse to vote anything other than immediate and permanent ceasefire and free Palestinians from this tyranny.

and the reply I received was fucking sickening:

Dear [Name] Thank you for contacting me about the situation in Gaza and the vote taking place on 21 February. I appreciate how important this matter is to you, and to so many of my constituents. I want to see an end to the terrible suffering in Gaza as soon as possible and for the fighting to stop now. I support the UK Government’s position, which is calling for an immediate pause to get aid in and hostages out, then progress towards a sustainable, permanent ceasefire, without a return to destruction, fighting and loss of life. There are several vital elements for a lasting peace, including the release of all hostages; the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the West Bank and Gaza, accompanied by an international support package; removing Hamas’ capacity to launch attacks against Israel; Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza; and a political horizon which provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. My ministerial colleagues have tabled an amendment to the debate motion setting out this position. I respect the role and independence of the ICJ. However, I agree with the UK Government that South Africa’s case at the ICJ is not helpful in achieving the goal of a sustainable ceasefire. I share the Government’s view that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide, and believed South Africa’s decision to bring the case was wrong and provocative. The Court’s call for the immediate release of hostages and the need to get more aid into Gaza is a position the UK has long advocated. On UNRWA, I am appalled by allegations that any agency staff were involved in the 7 October attack against Israel, a heinous act of terrorism. I support the UK's decision to pause any future funding of UNRWA whilst these concerning allegations are reviewed. The United States, Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands have all temporarily paused funding too. The Government is pressing the UN Office of Internal Oversight to produce a rapid interim report. The UK wants UNRWA to give detailed undertakings about changes in personnel, policy and precedents to ensure this can never happen again. The UK is working with allies to try to bring this situation to a rapid conclusion – not least because UNRWA have a vital role to play in providing aid and services in Gaza. I want to make clear that the UK remains committed to getting humanitarian aid to the people in Gaza who desperately need it. The Government is getting on with aid delivery, funding multiple implementing partners including other UN agencies and international and UK NGOs. This support is helping people in Gaza get food, water, shelter and medicines. The commitment to trebling aid to Gaza still stands and the UK is providing £60 million in humanitarian assistance to support partners including the British Red Cross, UNICEF, the UN World Food Programme and Egyptian Red Crescent Society to respond to critical food, fuel, water, health, shelter and security needs in Gaza. Indeed, the UK will continue to support the United Nations World Food Programme to deliver a new humanitarian land corridor from Jordan into Gaza. 750 tonnes of life-saving food aid arrived in the first delivery and 315 tonnes in the second delivery. Ministers are doing all that they can to get more aid in and open more crossings. Finally, the UK continues to call for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to be respected and civilians to be protected. The Government has previously assessed that Israel is committed and capable of complying with IHL, and regularly reviews its assessment. Thank you again for contacting me about this important matter.

not only does the man representing my area agree that it's not a genocide. he believes calling it such is MAKING IT WORSE?!?!??!?!?!?!??!!? and that yeah actually cutting funding to aid the area is fine bc 0.4% of them were linked to something maybe possibly

the govenrment is a fucking JOKE they do not deserve to do this and get away with it and i very much hope THINGS HAPPEN soon to stop their fuckign tyranny

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 9, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 10, 2024

On the docket today in front of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was the question of whether former presidents can be prosecuted for things they did while in office. The issue at hand is whether Trump can be tried for his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but Trump has also been charged in three other criminal cases: a national case over his mishandling of national security documents, a state case in Georgia for interfering with the 2020 election there, and a state case in New York for paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. He is also facing a number of civil cases.

A federal grand jury working under Special Counsel Jack Smith brought four criminal charges against the former president on August 1. Trump’s lawyers have argued not that he didn’t do what he is accused of, but that his position as president at the time gives him immunity from prosecution for breaking laws. In this case, they are arguing that he cannot be tried now because he has already been impeached and acquitted for his actions. They argue that a president can be charged criminally only if he has been impeached and convicted. 

A quick reminder: Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. A president could be impeached simply for watching TV all day, which is not a crime but which would make it impossible to do the job. Another reminder: as NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard documented today, in Trump’s second impeachment trial, his own lawyer Bruce Castor assured the Senate that “the text of the Constitution…makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”

A number of Republican Senators—including then Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—agreed, saying they would acquit Trump but expected him to answer to the law rather than the political system. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” 

Interestingly, Trump’s argument that he cannot now be charged with crimes makes the Republican senators who voted to acquit him complicit. It’s an acknowledgement of what was clear all along: they could have stopped him at any point, but they repeatedly chose not to. Now he is explicitly suggesting that their behavior shields him from answering to the law. 

Today, Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer told the court that so long as he was not impeached and convicted for his actions, a president could do virtually anything. "Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" Judge Florence Pan asked. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six.” Sauer answered that Congress would have to impeach and convict that president before he could be charged with a crime. "But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" Pan asked. Sauer again emphasized that Congress would have to act before any indictment could take place. “So your answer is no,” Pan said.

In his brief to the court opposing Trump’s claim, Special Counsel Smith pointed out that there is nothing in history to support Trump’s argument and that Nixon’s accepting a pardon “reflects the consensus view that a former President is subject to prosecution after leaving office.”

Trump’s approach, Smith wrote in a hard-hitting paragraph, “would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy. Under the defendant’s framework, the Nation would have no recourse to deter a President from inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers—thereby hamstringing any impeachment proceeding—to ensure that he remains in office unlawfully.” 

While presidential immunity is a crucially important question, it seems unlikely that any court will conclude that a U.S. president can act however they wish without any accountability before the law. Certainly the framers of the Constitution never intended such a thing (if you listen closely, you can hear them spinning in their graves). More recently, in 1974, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon ruled unanimously that President Richard Nixon could not use claims of executive privilege to withhold evidence from a criminal prosecution. Even more recently, on December 29, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Trump does not have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits. 

But the more pressing immediate question is when the court can resume progress on the case, which is stalled during appeals. The case is scheduled for trial on March 4, and Trump has been trying to drag it out—as he has all his trials—with the evident hope that it can be delayed until after the election. When Trump appealed the decision of the district court that he was not immune, Special Counsel Smith tried to move things along by taking the case directly to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to take it at that point. The case will almost certainly end up there again, at which time the justices could let the appeals court decision stand or agree to take it up. If they take it up, they could decide it quickly or delay it until after the election.

Today, in The Bulwark, nineteen former Republican members of Congress called on the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to move the case forward as quickly as possible. Calling out “Trump’s gambit to escape accountability altogether: assert an unprecedented claim of absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and use the appellate process to delay the trial until after the November election,” they defended the public’s right to have “critical information they need before they cast their ballots in November.”

Noting that as former members of Congress, they were “not persuaded that the argument [for presidential immunity] has any basis in law or history,” they said that whatever the courts decide, they should do it quickly. “Permitting delay would…undermine the rule of law [and] the integrity of the 2024 election,” they wrote. 

Although it is unusual for a defendant to attend such a hearing, Trump was at court today, clearly intending to use the case as part of his campaign. Perry Stein of the Washington Post noted that Trump recently lied to supporters that President Joe Biden was “forcing me into a courtroom in our nation’s capital” to weaken his campaign.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[desidov]

To: j.donoghue@icj-cij.org; K.GEVORGIAN@icj-cij.org; p.tomka@icj-cij.org; r.abraham@icj-cij.org; m.bennouna@icj-cij.org; a.yusuf@icj-cij.org; h.xue@icj-cij.org; j.sebutinde@icj-cij.org; d.bhandari@icj-cij.org; p.robinson@icj-cij.org; n.salam@icj-cij.org; y.iwasawa@icj-cij.org; g.nolte@icj-cij.org; h.charlesworth@icj-cij.org; l.brant@icj-cij.org

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding the impending matter of South Africa v. Israel with the ICJ

Dear Madam President and esteemed panel of Judges,

I hope this message finds you well and resolute. My name is [Your Name], I am a concerned citizen of the [Your Country]. I am reaching out to you with a sense of urgency and sincere apprehension which prompts me to break my customary silence.

I have always held the belief that individuals in positions of authority, such as yourself, harbour the best interests of humanity at heart. However, recent developments in the Middle East and the global response to them have stirred doubt in my convictions, compelling me to express my concerns directly to you.

As I explored the International Court of Justice's website, I took solace in the fact that it consists of "independent judges, elected regardless of their nationality from among persons of high moral character." With this understanding, I address you regarding the impending South Africa v. Israel matter, the provisional measures hearing of which is scheduled for Thursday, 11th and Friday, 12th January 2024.

I am sure that you are acutely aware of the gravity of the case before you, and I believe that your ability to discern the truth, resist external pressures, and deliver a just judgment is foremost on your mind. The Genocide Convention, a cornerstone of international law, was established in 1948 as a commitment to 'never again' allow atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazi’s in WW2. 152 states out of 194 nations of the world honourably signed up to the convention. It is a testament to our parents and grandparents that their generations committed to a set of standards that constitute the basic principles of right and wrong, which underpin the fabric of the world we live in and form the basis of the lives most of us are lucky enough to lead.

The very fact that the responsibility of adjudicating on this case has fallen upon your shoulders underscores a disheartening truth – the failure of existing systems of checks and balances within the international community. It is disconcerting that national interests have tainted the operations of our global systems, allowing the mass killing of civilians to persist without intervention. I find this reality appalling, as do countless citizens around the world who have expressed their horror through protests on the streets of cities across the globe.

The upcoming case is a litmus test for humanity's commitment to the solemn pledge of 'Never Again.' Generations have been educated about the horrors of the Holocaust, and this case challenges us to live up to the principles we profess. It is a stark reminder that the values we hold dear are being tested in real-time, with devastating consequences.

In March 2022, the International Court of Justice ordered Russia to immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine and ensure that affiliated units take no further steps in furtherance of the military operations. Despite this intervention, an estimated 10,000 civilians have tragically lost their lives in Ukraine since Russia's military operation in 2022. Moreover, and by comparison, the death toll in Gaza has already surpassed 22,000 since October 2023, with a staggering 70% of the victims being women and children.

In an age where mainstream media faces scepticism due to perceived biases, the global community has been witness to Israel's actions in real-time through various social media platforms such as X, TikTok, and Telegram. Enclosed with this letter, you'll find compelling evidence pointing towards Israel's culpability in intending to commit genocide and engaging in genocidal military actions, among other alleged war crimes.

We find ourselves in a world where trust in global institutions is eroding rapidly. The International Court of Justice, in particular, cannot afford to make an erroneous judgment in the #SouthAfrica v. #Israel genocide case. A misjudgement in this matter would not only underscore the ICJ's ineffectiveness but also prompt scrutiny regarding its autonomy from nation-state political influences, potentially compromising the esteemed moral character of the individuals involved.

In 1945 we celebrated Winston Churchill as the leader that brought the world together in war to put-down the threat of Nazi Germany and the horror it inflicted. That war claimed over 50 million lives. We do not wish to celebrate a wartime hero again; we wish to celebrate new heroes who averted a war by presiding over justice without fear or favour.

I humbly beseech you to approach this case with the utmost diligence, impartiality, and commitment to justice. The eyes of the world are upon you, and the outcome of this particular case will reverberate through history, shaping perceptions of the ICJ's impartiality and moral standing.

Yours sincerely, [Your Name]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Ginni Thomas, the wife of the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was accused of “undermining democracy” after it emerged that she emailed 29 Republican lawmakers in Arizona in her effort to overturn Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.

The Washington Post had previously reported that Ginni Thomas sent emails pressuring two Arizona Republicans to reject Biden’s win and choose their own electors.

On Friday, the paper said Ginni Thomas emailed 29 individuals.

Thomas’s involvement in Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat, including events around the deadly Capitol attack, has been widely reported.

That has focused attention on her husband, a stringent conservative who has not recused himself from election-related cases.

When Trump tried to deny the House January 6 Committee access to White House records, Thomas was the only Justice to side with the former-President. Texts from Ginni Thomas to Trump’s Chief of Staff were subsequently revealed.

Supreme Court Justices govern themselves in ethical matters. Activists and some Democratic politicians have therefore called for Thomas to resign or be impeached.

Only one Supreme Court Justice has been impeached: Samuel Chase in 1805. He survived. But Chase was accused of “tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partisan” – a charge with strong echoes in the case of Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

The Post said that on 9 November, two days after the election was called for Biden, Ginni Thomas used “FreeRoots, an online platform intended to make it easy to send pre-written emails to multiple elected officials”, to send identical messages to 20 members of the Arizona House and seven State Senators.

The emails urged the Republicans to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and “fight back against fraud”.

On 13 December, the day before electoral college votes were cast, Thomas emailed 22 members of the Arizona House and one Senator.

That message said: “Before you choose your state’s electors … consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead.” It also “linked to a video of a man urging lawmakers to ‘put things right’ and ‘not give in to cowardice’.”

Proven fraud in the 2020 election is vanishingly rare. Regardless, Arizona Republicans pursued a controversial audit – which increased Biden’s margin of victory.

Ginni Thomas did not comment on the new Post report. Nor did the Supreme Court. Thomas has said her activism does not clash with her husband’s work.

Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, said: “We’ve now learned that Ginni Thomas’s role in pushing officials to overturn the 2020 election was significantly greater than we knew. Justice Thomas’s failure to recuse on cases about the 2020 election looks worse and worse. This undermines democracy.”

Pointing to Ginni Thomas’s position on the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board, to which she was appointed by Trump, CREW said: “Friendly reminder that Ginni Thomas has a government position and absolutely should not.”

News of the Arizona emails emerged in the aftermath of a dramatic primetime hearing staged by the House Committee investigating January 6. Responding to the hearing, Trump repeated his lie about electoral fraud.

Amid growing calls for a criminal indictment against Trump, Wajahat Ali, a columnist and senior fellow at the Western States Center, which works to strengthen democracy, tweeted: “Democrats should aggressively put pressure on Clarence and Ginni Thomas. You have an extremist conservative duo working the courts and the rightwing activist machine to overturn our free and fair election.”

[yourreddancer]

Why Republicans are NOT the party of freedom

Democrats are the real protectors of freedom, and must claim it

Robert Reich

May 9

I don’t recommend spending time watching Republican attack ads. (They’re bad for your blood pressure.) Yet I’ve been doing it this weekend to better understand the core Republican message leading into the midterm elections. My finding: Republicans are planning to focus on “freedom” — claiming they’re the party of freedom and Democrats are the party of tyranny.

“Democrats want to take away your freedom” the former guy said, in the words now being repeated by almost every GOP candidate heading for the midterms.

Freedom is the most attractive and potent idea in American political culture. The right wing has claimed it as its own for a long time. It’s the most frequently used noun in Republican primary ads so far this month.

But with each passing day, the Republican claim to freedom becomes more absurd.

Just look at Republican states readying abortion bans as soon as the Supreme Court officially repeals Roe v. Wade. Is there a more important and intimate freedom than the freedom to choose when, how, and with whom to start a family?

Republican states are eliminating the freedom to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms. Dozens of bills are designed to limit what can be discussed in schools, and to restrict transgender athletes in school sports.

So far this year, Republicans have proposed 29 measures nationwide to curtail health care for transgender youth. Just few weeks ago, Idaho’s Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed legislation making it a crime punishable by life in prison for a parent to seek out gender-affirming health care for their transgender child.

Across the nation, Republican lawmakers are taking away students’ freedom to learn about America’s history of racism and discrimination.

The logic of Justice Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe — rejecting Court precedents based on a constitutional right to privacy — would open the way for Republican states to do what they did decades ago: bar access to contraceptives, criminalize homosexuality, and prohibit people from marrying someone of the same sex.

Republican lawmakers are attacking the most fundamental freedom of all — the freedom to vote. They’re restricting everything from mail-in voting to ballot drop boxes. (Which is why the Democrats’ “Freedom to Vote Act” continues to be so vitally important, and must be passed.)

Republicans’ contempt for freedom goes deeper. They don’t want Americans to enjoy the freedom that comes with good health care, good schools, and good wages. I’m reminded of philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s positive freedoms — not just the freedom from but the freedom to. Can anyone really be free if they’re saddled with medical debt and have to routinely pay outrageous healthcare costs? Or they’re burdened for years trying to pay off student loans? Can you really be free if you have no voice in your workplace and your employer refuses to let you organize with your coworkers for the right to collectively bargain? Can you really be free if you’re not paid a living wage and have to choose between feeding your family and keeping your lights on?

A living wage, the right to join a union, guaranteed healthcare, free higher education, the right to vote – these are the foundations of real freedom. Yet Republicans oppose all of these while Democrats support all (and progressive Democrats are fighting the hardest for them).

There’s a reason the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 rally was called “The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” Because freedom also means the ability to work in a job that pays enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

Republicans have no interest in preserving freedom. What they want to preserve is power — the power to impose their narrow ideology on everyone else, no matter who suffers.

In the months ahead, Democrats must stake claim to freedom. They should not allow Republicans to pose as the party of freedom when the GOP is busily taking away freedoms Americans hold dear. Democrats have to make the case — the true case — that they are on the side of freedom. Democrats, wake up. Six months until the midterms. Get this message out. Let freedom ring!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How unions de-risk work

Yesterday, I published an essay about how monopolies beget monopolies: when deregulation kicked off a wave of pharma mergers, the new pharma oligopoly gained the power to raise prices on hospitals.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/16/wage-theft/#excessive-buyer-power

The hospitals weren't able to form a cartel to insist on better prices: the US antitrust law created by Ronald Reagan's court sorcerer Robert Bork is incredibly tolerant of monopolist price-rigging, but violently opposed to cartels that price-rig.

Rather than forming a cartel, the hospitals gobbled each other up to create monopolies. If the CEOs of six hospitals insist on better drug prices, it's illegal. If the presidents of six hospitals (all owned by the same monopolist) do the same thing, it's fine.

Big Hospital wasn't merely better positioned to demand better drug prices from Big Pharma, they were also able to charge more to the fragmented, decentralized health insurance industry.

Predictably, this kicked off a wave of mergers that produced Big Insurance, a monopolized world that gives most Americans between zero and two insurers who'll take their business.

Freed from the risk of losing customers and bulked up to meet hospital monopolies on even footings, insurance companies could both insist on lower payouts to hospitals and *higher* premiums from patients. And at last we had some sort of equilibrium.

Pharma companies could charge more for drugs, but not too much more. Hospitals could lower the standard of care, raise prices, and squeeze workers' wages and working conditions. Insurance companies could cut payments to hospitals, raise prices and hike co-pays.

Everyone got what they wanted, except for two groups that can't form monopolies that push back against this monopoly-dominated industry:

* Patients, and

* Workers

Historically, the "monopolist" safeguarding patients' interests was the state: democratically elected lawmakers who relied on voters for re-election. The massive increase in corporate campaign finance was attended by steady erosion of political loyalty to the public interest.

And so the public lost its champion, and prices went up and quality went down and redress was whittled away to performative apologies after crises of too great a magnitude to be ignored, accompanied by fines that were mere fractions of the profits from corruption.

Meanwhile, workers' champions were their unions: solidarity organizations that corrected the negotiating imbalance between employers and employees by presenting a united front.

That unity extended beyond the gates of a single employer. Picket-line crossing was a grave sin, so if your hotel's maids went out on strike, the Teamsters wouldn't deliver your groceries and the taxi cabs wouldn't pick up at your entrance.

And related trades were able to bargain together: in Hollywood, the writers and actors and tradespeople would start each contract season by visiting the weakest studio as a body and demand the best deal, then require parity from other studios in turn.

Since the Reagan years, union power has been drained off. For example, the way Hollywood unions negotiate has been flipped on its head. Now, the *studios* visit the weakest union as a body and demand the most labor concessions, then take those to the other unions in turn.

It's been generations since union power was a given, and we haven't just lost our power, we've lost our imaginations - the sense of what is possible, what we are owed, how the system could work. We've learned to take precarity and low wages as a given.

That's why Reina Sultan's "8 People Describe How Unions Changed Their Lives" for Vice is so important: not because it is heartwarming (though it is) but because it is ripe with possibility, the recovered wisdom of a fallen civilization.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxqvm/why-unions-are-good-first-hand-accounts-of-how-unions-change-lives

These eight workers describe how joining a union turned precarity into certainty. How the hotels they worked for had to promise to hire them back after the pandemic lifted. How they were promised ten hours of uninterrupted sleep between shifts.

How their employers had to accommodate their disabilities. How they were guaranteed health insurance that covered their whole families. How they were protected from being arbitrarily fired, and guaranteed severance pay when they were laid off.

These guarantees have a common theme: they de-risk being a worker and make it riskier to be an employer. Much of our day-to-day life is a series of negotiations over who should bear the risk that things will turn out bad.

Think of all the corporate bailouts, how these are "socialism for shareholders, capitalism for workers." When the fed bails out banks and employers but not mortgage holders and workers, they move risk off the finance-sector's balance sheet and stick it on our balance sheet.

When you run a business, you assume risks. Maybe you have a slow Saturday and end up paying workers to hang around with nothing to do. If you can book a worker's Sat, but unilaterally send them home two hours into their shift because it's slow, you shift your risk onto them.

The worker has to be available for you, but you don't have to use that availability. Likewise disability accommodations: when you hire and train a worker, you face the risk that they will become disabled, permanently or temporarily, on or off the job.

When that happens, you might have to pay to change the physical environment so they can do their job, or give them disability pay. If you can just fire them, you shift the risk onto the worker, and off your own books.

Every benefit described by workers in Way's article is risk being shifted from workers back onto employers. The right not to be summarily fired means workers aren't at risk from vindictive, bad bosses. It also means employers may struggle to shed "low-performing" workers.

It's a good reminder of the "struggle" in "class struggle." These risks are, by their nature, zero-sum. To decrease the risk of being stuck with a bad employee, you have to *increase* the risk of an employee being targeted by a bad manager. There's no win-win here.

Sure, employers will say that they share the workers' interest in rooting out bad managers, but there is an inescapable contradiction between reserving the right to fire anyone, for any reason, and making sure workers aren't unjustly fired.

The same goes for every benefit articulated by union members. If you're an electrician who wants to be able to get home, sleep and go back to work without being interrupted for ten straight hours, you push risk onto your employer.

Meanwhile, if you *don't* have that right, your employer gets to shove risk onto you. For example, they could underinvest in upgrades and preventative maintenance, knowing that when things break down, they can summon you to get them working again, without paying any overtime.

The project of worker solidarity comes down to this foundational question: who should bear which risks? Would you rather have bad bosses firing people over personal vendettas, or co-workers who are hard to fire even though they're not great at their jobs?

We don't need to pretend that moving risk onto employers' side of the ledger always produces better outcomes. It doesn't. Workers can be jerks, too. But an individual bad boss has the power to do enormous harm to their entire workforce over a long term.

Think of all the people maimed, killed and sickened in Amazon's warehouses because of one individual's willingness and ability to shift risk off his balance sheet and onto theirs.

It's true that an especially toxic unionized worker could make life miserable for many, many other workers - but that's still a better outcome than an especially toxic CEO, not least because unions give workers the power to address bad workers even when management won't.

Is it possible for things to be overbalanced, for too much risk to be shifted off of worker's balance sheets and onto employers' side of the ledger? Sure, theoretically. But that is a situation so far removed from workplace reality today that it's practically a fairy-tale.

And if we're really worried about too much risk landing on employers, then we can go back to the peoples' source of power: democratic governance. Unions represent a power-bloc that can (but don't always) hold politicians to account.

It's hard to imagine any political path to checking corporate power that doesn't include organized groups of workers *and* organized groups of citizens, working for political change.

If health insurance, disability accommodations, retirement pay, parental leave and other sources of workplace risk are moved onto the public's balance sheet, they cease to be things that workers or employers need to argue about. They're just a given.

Think of it this way: bosses and workers don't fight over who will pay to pave the roads to the business. They don't fight over who will fight fires, or allocate RF frequency for the office wireless network. These risks are moved to the public ledger, where they belong.

This kind of political change is also hard to imagine, after 40 years of Reaganomics. But unionization makes it more achievable, because another word for "risk" is "profit." Shifting risk from workers onto bosses shifts money from bosses to workers.

Monopolized employers extract monopoly rents from their customers and gouge monopoly concessions from their workers. This isn't just extra money to send to shareholders - it's also extra money to spend in the political realm, blocking reforms that benefit everyone.

That's how we get wage stagnation and ghouls like Manchin and Sinema tanking the $15 minimum wage. The money extracted from workers was sent to these politicians so they would vote to make it possible to keep extracting money from workers.

Unionization - workplace justice - doesn't win the war for political justice. But it *does* cut the enemy's supply lines, deprive them of the ammo they're using to fight us.

Image: still from "Union Maids" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74gvcvXlgnM

[seymour-butz-stuff]

The level of hypocrisy that the Republican Party has continuously exhibited over the past 12 or so years is dizzying at times. It’s one of the main reasons why someone like Donald Trump has been able to rise to the position of power he has. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing has very predictably led to another moral and political crossroads for the GOP. The Republican Senate’s refusal to even vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Justice Antonin Scalia died was destined to be brought into question during the Trump administration.

Anyone who was paying attention and was the least bit critical of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s history of lying knew that McConnell’s excuse was bogus. It was less than an hour after the announcement of Ginsburg’s passing that McConnell made it clear his intention to push through another Supreme Court justice. Other Republican senators, like Ted Cruz—best known for groveling at the foot of a man who accused his father of conspiring to murder President John F, Kennedy and publicly calling his wife an ugly monster—has championed this position. George Stephanopoulos had Cruz on his show this Sunday to reconcile his hypocritical position.

Stephanopoulos started by playing video of Cruz in 2016 saying how “there’s a long tradition of how you don’t do this in an election year.” Cruz—who now has a beard, probably in the hope of tricking the public into thinking that he’s a different person now—began by talking about how great Justice Ginsburg was. It’s a nice sentiment, a sideshow to obfuscate from the question being asked, and mostly self-serving as Cruz spent a good amount of time reminding the audience that he, Ted Cruz, presented in front of the Ginsburg Supreme Court numerous times. Thanks, Ted, you’re still a lying craven sack of rotten banana peels.

Stephanopoulos, who really isn’t up to the task of pressing people beyond the gamesmanship of politics, asks Cruz to admit that his position—that the Republican Party should push through a Supreme Court justice in “an election year”—is more about politics than precedent. Cruz then goes on a long-winded and completely false trip to explain how what the Republican Party was saying in 2016 was both that the American people should be allowed to pick the next person, and that in so doing, they have now made that decision forever and so the rules don’t apply anymore.

It isn’t surprising. It’s an argument that any lawyer with zero scruples would make. Like any and all statements, there are always loopholes, and it is this verbal rationalization that allows people like Cruz and the people who vote for people like Cruz to pretend they aren’t completely and utterly full of shit. But full of shit they are, and Cruz is known for being one of the more garishly power-hungry ogres of the bunch. The rest of the interview includes Cruz saying that Joe Biden is setting terrible precedents by questioning the upcoming election’s potential validity—something that Donald Trump is doing and Biden has only reacted to. Finally, Stephanopoulos asks Cruz whether or not he would pledge that any viable Supreme Court justice candidate be at least a supporter of Roe v. Wade as settled law.

SEN. TED CRUZ: Well, I don’t believe that’s the right question to ask.

You can roll your eyes now, but hold tightly to your seat because ...

CRUZ: You know, I mentioned a minute ago, my book I have—One Vote Away—that’s coming out in a couple of weeks. I have an entire chapter dedicated to how you should make Supreme Court nominations.

I almost got vertigo there. Cruz goes on to outline the need for Republican nominees to have a “proven record” of being an ultra right-wing looney toon. The transparent desire to be president is so grotesque it isn’t a surprise that Cruz was trounced by Trump.

The Republican Party has made it clear time and time again that they have very little interest in democracy or justice or morality. They are interested in power, and more specifically, maintaining their power at a time in history where their stated ideologies are not simply unpopular, they have been proven societal failures. It is time to win this election, abolish the filibuster, and expand the Supreme Court. We need a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people.

[foreverlogical]

Just in case you missed seeing what caused tRump's latest meltdown, here it is again. From Christianity Today. #IMPOTUS Trump Should Be Removed from Office

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.

Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

[never-sated]

Four years ago, after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump, one of the most brutal conversations I had was with my then-11-year-old son, who had grown up imagining that the world looked a certain way and discovered overnight that it did not. He was worried that he might someday have to defend children at his school from racists and bigots in the schoolyard, and he feared he wasn’t up to the task. His words at the time broke my heart. He said something like, “I know myself. I’m never gonna be the No. 1 guy to step in. If someone else steps up, I could be the No. 2 guy. But I don’t think I could stop it myself.” We talked a lot in the weeks after about bystander intervention, about being the chip guy on the subway (he just ate chips until a violent situation was defused), and about the beautiful words Mary Beth Tinker once shared with me, about how terrified she was when she wore a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War. She was the one who explained how sometimes you only have to be “a little bit brave.” 

When I scroll through social media today, I am gripped by the same fears—of violence and unchecked power—that have made it nearly impossible to exhale for the past few months, perhaps years. I cannot predict what this day, this week, will bring. But what humbles and amazes me is the civic courage I’m seeing, the flexed muscles of so many ordinary people who never believed, in 2016, that they would survive this, much less find courage to step in if they were called upon to do so. 

Thousands of people phoned strangers in Philadelphia on Monday to urge them to vote. Some of them never thought they were capable of such a thing. My friends who marched in D.C. just last week to protest the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation were fanned out across the country knocking on doors Monday. My friend Mark is poll watching today in an East Philadelphia precinct that has received credible threats from white supremacists. When I scroll through social media these days, I genuinely don’t recognize some of the skinny First Amendment scholars I knew over a decade ago. They are now suited up to monitor and protect and intervene in the tense circumstances to come. I look at my journalist friends, who have come to treat death threats and bomb threats as the cost of doing business, and at how many of them have written and spoken and fought at their personal and professional peril in these dark times. I see people who have gone from citizens to activists to inspirational T-shirts, from historians and local voting rights activists to someone else’s only hope. 

Doctors and nurses and orderlies and teachers. Transportation workers, election workers, and factory workers. None of these people thought they would have to do what they now do every single day. But those muscles and callouses and scars are now part of who they have become. I am looking around at the feeds of folks who never in a million years would have thought of themselves as protesters, marchers, organizers, passive resistors, civil rights attorneys, poll monitors during a pandemic, and I wonder if they see what I saw this morning: that whatever this wretched four years has broken, it has also built so many different kinds of brave, such a thick and rich kind of civic power. It’s the kind of brave that will have people standing in lines for hours, the kind of brave that will have them voting in the face of closed polling places and burdensome ID requirements and even threats of harassment. It’s the kind of brave some people have been doing for a long, long time but a lot of other people knew little about.           

I was reminded this morning of Justice Antonin Scalia, in an oral argument in the 2010 case Doe v. Reed. Opponents of marriage equality were challenging Washington state’s practice of publishing the signatures on petitions for a ballot referendum, as part of their public records laws. They wanted the right to try to deny marriage equity, and to do so anonymously. Some of the court’s conservatives suggested that publishing the names of signatories of a petition put them in danger of harassment and threats. Justice Samuel Alito fretted about religious affiliations being published and people storming others’ homes seeking “uncomfortable conversations.” But it was Scalia, tag-teaming with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who insisted that much as we might wish otherwise, “The fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.” He went on to point out, rather presciently, that “the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process.” He went on, more or less shouting that “you know, you can’t run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known!” And—no surprises—Ginsburg had his back throughout. At the time, it was all very hypothetical, but in the years since we’ve heard these arguments, GOP groups have hidden their donor lists under this same theory of protecting themselves from public criticism, while doing immense damage to the institutions of democracy, and more recently to the institution of voting itself. The “civic courage” for which Scalia advocated that day is today apparent in the people who realize that political silence is not a marker of “politeness” but instead can be a hallmark of complicity.

Strapping on a semi-automatic weapon and terrorizing voters isn’t bravery any more than invading a small college town with flaming torches is bravery. Tweeting encouragement for the jailing, kidnapping, and assault of your political opponents isn’t bravery, just as deriding the military while dodging the draft is not courage. Being a bully requires neither courage nor conviction, just the knowledge that you will be protected in your abuse of those who are powerless. But for the millions of Americans who have marched and organized, who have been arrested for the first time, who have knocked on the doors of strangers, who have made the art of the resistance and baked cookies for the resistance, and ended friendships, and stood up to trolls, and explained hellish truths to their kids, and who are still today—as the president incites his bullies—doing the kinds of things they would never have imagined themselves doing, well there is a name for all this activity: It is civic courage, and without it, there would only be bullies to occupy the field. 

I have no idea what comes next. I have no illusions that electoral victories will change fundamentally broken systems of power and money and gender and race. This will require decades of work to repair. But take a moment, in the maelstrom of today, to gently thank someone you’ve watched become just a “little bit brave” over these past four years. You may not recognize it in yourselves, but you will surely see it in those around you. And as the person who has penned a dozen “_____ Is Not Going to Save Us,” articles—about the Bob Muellers, and Adam Schiffs and even the Justice Ginsburgs—know that today I see the chip guys all around. You are the chip guys you had hoped to see in the world. I hope you see it too.

[foreign-falcon]

Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt

Its one thing to disagree with a Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt decision but to sit there and say he wont know what hit him brings this to a whole other levelHe should pay a price for these statements Jack Reed This only serves to illustrate how demented Schumer really is as if his dementia wasn t already perfectly clear from his illegal and unconstitutional antics since Trump was elected But this is beyond egregious he directly threatened two Supreme Court justices for writing opinions he did not like Diane Clark Schumer Pelosi Schiff Clintons Obama so many more dangerous democrats hurting our country taking our monies embarrassing United States. 3 years old and this baby is still on the billboard200 album chart thank you for your continued support and enthusiasm music was my gateway drug to every other wonderful aspect of creative opportunity that I ve explored and I m grateful for that but music is and always will be my first love and direct connection to your spirit I m blessed to have y all one love always anti antiversary. Yes this al sucks but if we just put our big pants on over time we will over come this Sharron Jones Love you to death Mr President but I am not with you at all on thisWe want to live work and economy can all be repaired in time

Source: Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt

Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt, Hoodie, Sweater, Longsleeve T-Shirt For Men and Women

Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt

See more: Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt

Premium Trending, Musical, Father Day This Summer Season will Presents Who Love:

In the end christine was asked to do nothing difficult while josh had to survive difficult elimination challenges she wasn’t asked to produce eggs cooked 4 ways in 10 minutes or 3 different souffles not asked to make a Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt perfect tart to earn her way back into the competition she did nothing stunning at all fried chicken no matter how well cooked is still just fried chicken my mother could do that and I think that is the major flaw of this show the judges’ are still thinking about mom’s home cooking not the art of cooking food well I do believe the judges got sucked into the emotion of her story after all who doesn’t want to believe in the underdog the person who has to overcome difficult life challenges I think that clouded the judges’ vison in my mind josh’s journey was much more difficult given that after 3 seasons this show has failed to produce a male winner the true underdogs are the men david martinez frank and certainly josh for any male masterchef hopefuls keep that in mind this is a woman’s show. This is funny contemporary edgy modern so that means it is likely the network will cancel it better you promote the show to the max to bring in the modern funny edgy audience any network needs to compete in this digital age I enjoy watching it I have enjoyed the actor who plays sean since I found him first on will and grace any openly gay man who has a daughter reminds me of my dear friend who raised his three daughters to run a metaphysical shop yes gay men find themselves and can raise children this show give a positive image to family life not gay family life but family life with all the political action attempting to bring back hatred bigotry and separation nbc can be a voice for positive attitudes towards family life through the raucous comedy of this show it is really up to the network to propel itself into the 21st century as opposed to re envisioning past successful shows like ironside a breakthrough show for the disabled by simply saying hey let’s make him black what is next let’s bring back the monkees by making them an all black female group you have an original charming topical funny show take the risks to make good television rather than re make classics badly hannibal is edgy and excellent. For givingtuesday the global girls alliance asked young women what they’re thankful for this holiday season and how they plan to pay it forward to girls around the world I hope you’ll follow their lead support projects for girls at gofundme com globalgirlsalliance See Other related products: Never Underestimate An Old Woman With Cat And Cooking Skills Blood Moon T Shirt

[spaceandtimeuniverse]

Election Anxiety

Today is Wednesday, six days left until the election. 

This morning, I woke up to countless news in related with the election. My anxiety started the moment I got into the news. There are cases that the court took up in related with the voting such as the court uphold Texas governor’s order of having one drop in ballot in each county. It is unfair because in several of counties, there are thousands of people and they all need to send in their ballot in one box? There are several that were rejected in Texas that some officials are trying to stop a suppression of vote such as age eligibility requirement to be lived, allowing curbside voting and waive the witness requirements for mail in ballots in Alabama, or suspend the witness requirement in South Carolina. The Court has rejected those arguments. Although the Court has sided for Pennsylvania to have ballots to be counted if they arrive up to three days after election day, I am still concerned on more cases as this in several states in regarding to the election. 

It does not help that a Justice was confirmed early on Monday that has never supervised or argued a case and had little experiences with the court proceedings as Amy Barrett could use her conservative’ beliefs to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 2008 LGTBA same-sex marriage, DACA and numerous of cases that the majority of Americans does not believe or would agree with if those court cases were overturned. The anxiety increased. 

While there are news all over the media that showed Joe Biden is leading in polls where Clinton four years ago would have been declined or gave Trump an advantage in the polls, I am still reminded by the memories of four years ago where all the national polls would claim Clinton to won the election but the world was shocked when the electoral college counted has gotten Trump to arrive to victory. No matter how many positive news about that, the flashback and anxiety would keep increasing. Memories of those past four years would keep coming back. 

Do you remember when our president mocked a disabled person? Do you remember when the leaked tapes revealed of Trump’s “locker talk”? 

Do you remember where there were protests in Charlottesville and Trump backtracked his condemnation on white supremacists and claimed there were “good people on both side”?

 Do you remember the countless, outrageous tweets that Trump tweeted sometimes in the middle of the night, sometimes four in the morning? That many of those tweets that if someone else would say those in public, those people would have been fired? 

Do you remember the handling of his first hurricane and procrastinated or never gave the aid to Puerto Rico? (Even if the news found later that it was stolen by local officials, why didn’t his administration double checked) 

Do you remember the family separation policy and Trump claiming it was his predecessors’s policy and refused to change the policy? How many families that were separtated? How many children that were locked in cages with “minimal” resources that they could provide to help those children? Remember when ICE was destructive and went to various states including sancturacy cities to take undocumented immigrants from their homes that they were supposed to be safe in? 

Do you remember how many people in his administration have ties or working with Russia? Or that they took advantage of their position for personal gain such as Scott Pruitt, Steven Mnuchin, Ben Carson, Betsy Devos, and so many numerous people who shouldn’t be on the job? Why did the Trump’s administration has so many people such as Flynn, Kelly, Sanders, etc. working and left. He has the highest vacancies or people who left his administration than any administration? 

Do you remember Trump’s ban on transgender in the military? Do you remember Trump mocking the late John McCain claiming that he wasn’t a war hero because he was captured? Do you remember when he called those type of people ‘losers’ that many veterans took offense because they served their country as well as they did? Do you remember when Trump question the soldiers who fought in Afghanistan and sacrificed and turned to John Kelly and said, “I just don’t get it” when John Kelly’s son died in the war? 

I could list so much more. So many more. What was even worse was that under Trump, our country never has been this polarized. This country has never been so divisible. Both parties are blaming each other. While we know that the facts remain about Trump and his administration, there are people who supported him all around the world, claiming “fake news” and refusing to double check those facts themselves. Why is it that lies are more believable than the truth? Is it because people are afraid of admitting they are wrong? Is it because people finally find like-minded people and are stubborn to admit they were wrong because they didn’t want to leave a group where they felt their opinions matter? Is it because people are indifferent to other people’s pain? Their opportunities taken away? Is it much easier for people to shrug off their shoulders and say “it is what it is”? Just as what Trump said during this covid pandemic and how he would respond differently to more than 200,000 lives gone? I am not even surprised that the president had covid, but it doesn’t change his views or his stance on covid. 

I am scared. I am scared for the soul of our country. I know our country have its dark history with breaking treaties with Native Americans, with slavery, with Jim Crows laws, segregations, wars, becoming a face of democracy and secretly rigging elections in third world countries because the outcome would benefits our country and so much more. I believe in the positivity of the country’s progress. We have grown up so far so that we could be in a place where we could finally have laws that matched the constitution that “all man are created equal”. All people are created equal and deserve the same rights and the same privileges as each other. So while we have made so much progress, there is this president that America voted four years ago that shred up all of those progress! Look what happened with gun violence, police brutality, voters’ suppressions, etc. Look what happened when the courts or other police stand by or supported the words of the officers over the victims because they were biased toward the police, laws that needed to be changed or there need to be more resources such as dash-cams needed to be installed, or even . Look what happened with the Keystone Pipeline that threatened our native lands! 

We even have a president who refused to do something about the climate change! Trees are dying, the ocean is in pollution of numerous of plastics, waste that we contributed to kill off other animals’ lives or that affected their habitat negatively. Trump was against alternative energy, claiming about wind power that is killing birds or that he claimed people are just fine in putting more waste in the environment. Because of his reluctance to helping our Earth, winter are getting more colder and dangerous with snow storms and hurricanes. Our summers are getting more hotter with the fires that devastated the west coast and that thousand of people are dying from heat exhaustion, heat wave, etc. The midwest are dealing with more tornados than before. 2020 has topped all previous weather or environmental records in several states or countries. It is just disastrous! All of those regulations that the president strapped off years ago have given more companies or corporations to gain profit, gain more equipments to do more damage to the environment every day. There was an article that it is not the matter of if anymore. Because the  consequences that the world would face has already happened and that it was the matter of now to prevent those consequences from being worse. 

Even in the election, we shouldn’t have the fear of what would happen if our president does not concede if he loses. That is something that should scare so many people. What would happen if the president does not concede? Would the Supreme Court sided with Trump about the election? Would there be an illegible recount in hopes for Trump’s officials to try to rig the election with more ballots? What if the recount cause Trump to win? What does that means? Would there be a revolution? A civil war? What if Trump does concede but his supporters would be outraged to cause a civil war? 

Whatever that means, all of this shouldn’t happen. A presidential election should just be boring and whoever the next president, the transition should be smooth. Our constitution is in crisis.  Our democracy is in perils. If there are something afoul with our government, our democracy, and our votes in this election, then come what may, we should do something. We should get our voices heard or our hands seen. We should go out and protest, revolt if we have to. If it leads to a constitutional crisis or to start off a new government in the process, so be it. 

But it doesn’t have to be this way. We should go out there and vote! Vote by mail or vote in person safely. Make sure you check if your vote is valid. The power is in our hands. What would you do with that power? Would you keep it for yourself like our president did? Or would you share it for others in need? 

[dandymeowth]

Many of the landholders are newcomers from out of state, though some old-timers remain—families that earned their deeds generations ago, the principal paid by ancestors who shivered through pitiless winters in tar-paper shacks. Wilson has been hiking and hunting the Crazies since he was a little kid, but only in the past year or so, he says, have the private ranchers seemed more like obstacles than neighbors. “They could shut down pretty much the whole interior of the Crazy Mountains, as far as I can see,” he says.                

He trudges up a rooty slope and, after a blind bend, sees something straddling the trail that stops him cold. It’s a padlocked metal gate. He hiked this trail a couple of weeks before, and the fence wasn’t there. A sign on it reads, “Private Property: No Forest Service Access, No Trespassing.” It’s exactly the kind of sign he’d been bad-mouthing a few minutes earlier, but he wasn’t expecting to see one here. The locked gate feels like an escalation, a new weapon in an improvised war.                

................

A debate is taking place across the country over preserving land for recreational public use, but most of the attention is focused on vast swaths of historically or scientifically significant terrain that Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent George W. Bush protected under the national monument designation—for example, Bears Ears in Utah and Katahdin Woods and Waters in Maine. These disputed trails leading into the Crazy Mountains represent another front in the escalating battle over control of federal territory, and the fighting here is just as contentious as over the monuments. Historic settlement patterns in the American West created a checkerboard pattern of landownership: Public properties are often broken-up plots, resulting in numerous access disputes. According to a 2013 study by the Center for Western Priorities, that dynamic has effectively locked the public out of about 4 million acres of land in Western states; almost half of that blocked public land, or about 2 million acres, is in Montana, according to the study. The push to end public thoroughfare is either an overdue reassertion of private property rights or an openly cynical land snatch, depending which side of the gate you’re standing on.       

................

In late October 2-16, in the dying days of the Obama era, a U.S. district judge issued a verdict that seemed to set a precedent for paths like this one. The Texas-based owners of a Montana property called Wonder Ranch, about 100 miles southeast of the Crazy Mountains, had sued the Forest Service after the government filed a statement of interest claiming an easement—a legal agreement to use a portion of someone’s land for a specific purpose—on a trail that ran across the ranch’s property before reaching the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. The Forest Service said the trail had been routinely used as an access route to the forest by the government and the public for decades, and therefore it should be considered public because of historical use. The owners’ suit argued that the government had no right to an easement. The Department of Justice countersued, producing evidence dating back more than a century showing that the public and the government consistently used the trail for packhorses and hike-ins. The Forest Service won the case.                       

Had the landowners been able to show that the trail had been used for at least five consecutive years only by those who’d received their permission, their claims of private control might have held. That helps explain why Alex Sienkiewicz, the forest ranger overseeing the district that includes the Crazy Mountains, every year sends an email to his staff reminding them never to ask landowners’ permission to use trails that the government already considers public. “By asking permission,” he wrote in 2016’s reminder, “one undermines the public access rights and plays into their lawyers’ trap of establishing a history of permissive access.” That didn’t mean anyone could veer off the trail and slip onto the private property—that’s trespassing, no question about it—it just meant the trail itself should be considered a public throughway.      

....................

For a while, it seemed that attitude might be one of the rare Obama positions that President Donald Trump could live with. In a pre-election interview, Trump told the magazine Field & Stream he didn’t like the idea of transferring the land to the states, suggesting such transfers could erode public oversight of them: “I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do,” he said. “I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”                                       

Public land advocates smelled a contradiction, since the new president was positioning himself elsewhere as a champion of private property rights. And regardless of what he said, Trump’s campaign had tapped into a very deep well of antigovernment sentiment, the sort that Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy appealed to when he occupied public territories and led armed standoffs against federal agents in 2014 and again in 2016. The co-chair of a state group called Veterans for Trump pleaded guilty to helping organize the ad hoc rebel militia, and Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, has been one of Bundy’s most vocal supporters. Immediately after the election, whether or not the results had anything to do with their actions, the Crazy Mountains landowners launched a collective blitz to take control of the trails leading to Forest Service property.                

.................

Gregoire decided to go for it. When the trail veered through a private plot called the Hailstone Ranch, he spotted a No Trespassing sign that read, “The Forest Service Has No Easement Here.” He ignored it, consulting his GPS to make sure he never strayed from the path onto the private ranch land. The landowner somehow detected that he was using the trail (“I think he had an alarm or something,” Gregoire later speculated) and called a sheriff’s deputy, who was waiting for Gregoire to return at the end of the day. The deputy charged him with criminal trespassing.                                       

Shortly after that, the owners of nine ranches neighboring the Hailstone went after Sienkiewicz. Back on July 20, 2017, a volunteer at Public Land/Water Access Association Inc., a Montana nonprofit that supports open public access to federal lands and waterways, had gotten hold of, then posted on its Facebook page, Sienkiewicz’s most recent annual email reminder to his staff advising them never to sign visitor logs for trail access or ask permission. The property owners apparently assumed that Sienkiewicz had posted the item himself—proof that he was behaving as a political activist, not a public servant. The ranch owners sent a letter to U.S. Senator Steve Daines, a Republican representing Montana, saying in part, “As a direct result of this inflammatory Facebook post, we have many questions about the FS position regarding access across our private property.” Several of the ranchers who signed the letter have also been listed as contributors to Daines’s political campaigns in the past five years.                                       

In May 2017, Daines echoed the landowners’ complaints—and forwarded a screen shot of the Facebook post—in a letter to Thomas Tidwell, then the chief of the Forest Service, and to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, whose agency oversees the Forest Service. Less than two weeks later, Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas) got involved, firing off a similar complaint to Perdue and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who has a long history in Montana. An avid hunter and fisherman, he was born in Bozeman, about 40 miles from the Crazies. He was also a Montana congressman, filling the seat Daines had occupied before he moved to the Senate. (At least one of the ranchers donated to Zinke’s campaign.)

In his letter, Sessions described the Forest Service’s approach to public access as part of “the war on private property owners conducted by the Obama administration.” The Wonder Ranch owners hadn’t been among the nine who signed the initial letter, but they were the link that got Sessions involved. One of the co-owners, a Texan named Chris Hudson, lives in Sessions’ district, and Sessions proposed that Hudson and Perdue meet. Sessions also recommended that the Forest Service issue a nationwide directive to prevent rangers or individual districts from declaring paths and roads public based on historic use.                

.................

Defenders of Sienkiewicz and Gregoire—a group that included land access advocates, proprietors of recreation businesses, wildlife groups, and individuals—cast the developments as evidence of an under-the-table assault on public lands that the Trump administration appeared to endorse, if not initiate. In spring 2017, Trump requested that Zinke’s Department of the Interior review national monuments, designated or enlarged since 1996, and possibly downsize them, a step he said could rectify what he considered a “massive federal land grab.” Several politicians from Utah, such as Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop, and Jason Chaffetz, had led the downsizing push, and for years they’d been advocating turning such lands over to the states—the strategy Trump had earlier declared would result in a selloff to the highest bidder. The department eventually suggested downsizing six of the 27 monuments under review, but the ultimate fate of those lands and waters remains in limbo; the matter will go to Congress, and the conservationists have said they will fight the new boundaries in court.              

................

Anderson has carved out a field for himself in something called free-market environmentalism. Along with his job at PERC, he’s a professor emeritus at Montana State University and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, a libertarian-leaning think tank. In op-eds published across the country, he’s an evangelist for limited government and private property rights. He views many environmentalists with undisguised contempt, and they generally return the favor.                                       

Like many nonprofits, PERC doesn’t disclose its funding sources, but Greenpeace International has posted records showing that they’ve included Exxon Mobil Corp. and the industrialists Charles and David Koch. Anderson probably wouldn’t worry too much about how that looks: He believes the private sector, in most cases, is a better steward of nature than the government.                

...........

Quilici’s plan was seat-of-the-pants. He thought he might spend three or four days hiking to an exit point on the far side of the mountains, but he didn’t realize that the most direct trail was blocked by the gate Wilson had confronted. Other possible paths were also contested. When I told him this, he redirected his criticism away from the parking lot and toward the landowners. “I bet they have some lobbying power,” he said. “They just want to keep everything like it’s their own private reserve.”        

Herein lies the big challenge for the landowners and their defenders: Survey after survey has shown that the public hates the idea that someone can lock taxpayers out of public land, and that they’re suspicious of transferring control of such tracts to private enterprise. Nevertheless, Anderson and PERC deny that their position is out of step with public opinion, even casting it as pro-access. Their rationale is oblique: If the Forest Service insists the public has a right to use the trails, they say, private landowners will naturally rebel; numerous court battles will ensue, tying up the trails in years of litigation and costing the government millions of dollars. And as the cases proceed, the landowners will take steps to secure their property rights, blocking traffic on the trails until the mess is sorted out.                                       

“In the places where now there are signs,” Anderson predicts, “you’ll see a locked gate.” His comment is an informed one. He counts several of the landowners involved in the Crazy Mountains disputes as friends, including the owners of the Rein Anchor Outfitting and Ranch, who operate a hunting lodge and signed the letter against Sienkiewicz. PERC’s affiliation with politically connected outfitters that stand to profit if trails are closed bolsters the sense, to Wilson and others confronting locked gates, that a void in coherent policy about public land management is being filled by cronyism that rewards wealth and connections above all else. Another co-owner of the Wonder Ranch, Frank-Paul King, a friend and former student of Anderson’s, served on PERC’s board. Hudson, the man who got Representative Sessions involved, is King’s brother-in-law, and he’s also a board member and the former president of the Dallas Safari Club, a group that made national headlines in 2014 when it auctioned off a trip to Africa to hunt an endangered rhinoceros. (The winning bidder, who paid $350,000, traveled to Namibia and shot a black rhino bull, an animal the club said had threatened the rest of the herd.) The Dallas Safari Club has granted PERC funding for, among other things, a study on “private conservation in the public interest.”                                       

In 2016 the Dallas Safari Club hosted a fundraiser featuring the big-game hunting enthusiast Donald Trump Jr. that netted $60,000 in campaign donations to the Republican National Committee. “The candidate’s family connection to hunting and its legacy gives DSC a huge opportunity to have the right people in place as advocates for our mission,” the club’s newsletter stated. After Trump was elected, Hudson was listed as an organizer for a post-inaugural fundraiser called “Opening Day 45,” which featured Eric and Donald Trump Jr. as co-chairs. It was canceled after TMZ published an early draft of the invitation in December 2016, promising personal access to President Trump, along with a multiday hunting excursion with his sons, to anyone who donated more than $500,000, sparking criticism that the sons planned to peddle access to their father.                

...............

The trail access issue was extremely sensitive inside the Forest Service, she explained, and potentially costly, too. The Trump administration was proposing a 73 percent cut in the Forest Service’s capital improvement and maintenance budget and an 84 percent reduction, from $77 million to $12 million, in its trail program budget. The Wonder Ranch case, she observed, had cost the government “in the millions of dollars,” and it wasn’t over yet—the landowners were appealing the decision, and it now sat with an appellate judge. “I’m not saying we’re never going to go to court, but the Forest Service is going to be careful about when we go to court and make sure we’re going to court on cases we can win,” she said.                

...............

The agency in mid-October announced it was giving Sienkiewicz his job back. But Gevock’s frustrations spoke to an unresolved question underlying all of the disputes: Who, exactly, is the Forest Service supposed to serve? On the agency’s website, former Director Thomas Tidwell wrote that its guiding principles were clearly established by Gifford Pinchot, the service’s founding chief, during the Gilded Age—“a time when the nation’s resources were being exploited for the benefit of the wealthy few,” Tidwell stated. “The national forests were based on a notion that was just the opposite—that these lands belong to everyone.”                                       

The public access advocates say they’re not sure they trust the spirit of Pinchot’s original message has survived intact. The mixed signals coming from the Trump administration mean everything rests on how those sometimes conflicting messages are interpreted. Zinke has repeatedly insisted, without offering specifics, that he is pro-access, and on his first day in office he pledged to fight against the “dramatic decreases in access to public lands across the board” that he said were plaguing America. “It worries me to think about hunting and fishing becoming activities for the landowning elite,” he said.                                       

But in July 2017, while public land advocates were protesting the Interior Department’s pending move to downsize the national monuments and hikers were cursing the new No Trespassing signs in the Crazies, Zinke traveled to Denver to speak at the annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. The group, a conservative lobbying coalition that helps lawmakers draft legislative proposals, has energetically pushed for the potential transfer of federal lands to the states. Whether Zinke’s speech clarified the government’s general, overarching philosophy on public-vs.-private control of lands that are currently federal, only members of the lobbying group can say for sure. Unlike several other speeches delivered at the conference, Zinke’s wasn’t transcribed or published, and it was closed to the general public.                

[phroyd]

Even the sane Evangelicals, the old-school christians, and the publication founded by Billy Graham, knows that Trump is no Messiah, no gift from God, and needs to go! - Phroyd

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.

Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

Phroyd