#…I thought republicans were against big government

[transrevolutions]

@rex-and-regina

1) marat did not encourage "murder of innocent civilians" in l'ami du peuple. while he did sometimes use violent rhetoric (like in the "five hundred heads" quote that people love to throw around with no context), that was pretty much the norm for political journals at the time. they were sensational and emotional and dramatic and hyperbolic. that was pretty much the stylistic standard. if you compare marat's paper with, say, hebert's or even desmoulins's, you'll find he's actually pretty academic and straightforward for the era.

2) if you try to counter my first point with "but the september massacres", you need to know that marat was not directly responsible for those either. the narrative that he caused it stems from the fact that he put out an issue of his paper a little while before the massacres that said some stuff about taking up arms to defend the homeland from conspirators and traitors, etc. etc. except, y'know, a bunch of people were saying stuff like that in their papers (see above). it's true that he didn't explicitly condemn the massacres, but nobody in the government really wanted to talk about it because of how messy of a situation it was. someone else even said something like "we will draw the curtain over this event and leave its judgement to posterity".

3) robespierre.... did not cause the "reign of terror". in fact they did not even call it the reign of terror at the time (historians came up with that later). actually, if we want to get pedantic, the term terreur had a very different connotation in the 18th century than it does now, but I digress. robespierre was the subject of a massive smear campaign when his coworkers realized they couldn't make him shut up about various crimes that they were involved in and killed him to keep him from airing out their dirty laundry. they also killed a bunch of his political allies because they couldn't have them exonerating him, could they? look it up it's actually wild. so they blamed him for all the issues that the government had, even the ones he was trying to fix (he opposed the shitshow in lyons and nantes, cautioned against needless bloodshed, abhorred the practice of treating executions as a spectacle). also he didn't actually have nearly as much power as people seem to think now. he was a member of the national convention (the french republic's elected legislative body), and a member of the committee of public safety (a council elected from members of the convention to deal with the escalating war situation and some other stuff). he was not the leader of the CSP (which did not have a leader) or the convention (which had a presidency that was mostly ceremonial and worked on a rotating basis). he also never sentenced anyone to death because it was the tribunals that did that, not the convention or CSP.

4) the time period that is generally considered the "reign of terror" (as flawed a concept as that is) is usually placed after the assassination of marat. because a big reason for the paranoia that led to the escalation of security measures was the fact that marat was killed. marat was seen as kind of unkillable by the people of paris (won his own political show trial, etc.) so if you could kill marat, you could kill anyone. so it's kind of hard to say what marat would've supported or not supported after he died, especially since his death itself heavily influenced the next stage of the revolution.

5) charlotte corday wasn't even a monarchist. she was aligned with the girondins, who were moderate republicans in favor of the free market. she didn't like marat because marat was calling the girondins corrupt in his newspaper after a prominent girondin official turned traitor and deserted to the austrians (whom france was at war with). not entirely sure what she thought she would accomplish with this, because a great way to make your political faction seem really corrupt is to brutally murder a guy for criticizing it.

6) a bunch of people actually tried to stop marat through various means, legal and illegal. namely lafayette and brissot and capet and barbaroux and necker and... you get the picture. charlotte corday was just the one that succeeded.

a final point: why do you criticize marat for "encouraging" (but never committing) murder while you simultaneously praise corday for committing a literal actual murder? only one of the three people (marat, robespierre, corday) you mentioned actually killed anybody, and it wasn't marat or robespierre.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Sign going up on Pennsylvania turnpike

* * * *

The future of the Democratic Party on display

August 22, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

My overarching impression of the third night of the convention is that the future of the Democratic Party was on display, and it was beautiful sight! The bench is deep and will carry us forward for two generations. By my count, there were four future Democratic presidents (at least) on the dais on Wednesday evening. As on previous nights, the convention choreography was expertly crafted to communicate to all Americans—not merely the Democratic faithful. It was a fun, raucous evening capped by a terrific speech by Tim Walz.

It is odd to write about an event that most readers watched live. You saw it with your own eyes, so it feels presumptuous to assume that my observations are unique. Tonight, less is more. I will remark on a few highlights and then rely on readers to continue their cogent observations in the Comment section. I urge all readers to review the Comment section to see what readers of this newsletter community thought about the third night.

Tim Walz delivered

Tim Walz proved again that Kamala Harris chose wisely. Tim is an effective communicator who comes across as an “everyman” who is trusted by everyone. In the end, Walz morphed into a football coach giving a half-time pep talk about the state of the race. He said that we are “down by a field goal” and we have the ball and are driving down the field.

That metaphor signals that Democrats are the underdog but have momentum. That is the right message at this moment. We can take nothing for granted.

We have heard most of Tim Walz’s speech before, but he delivered it with new energy and purpose while remaining completely relatable and earnest.

Walz wisely began his speech by saying, “We are all here tonight for one simple reason: We love this country.”

In a line that will be on bumper stickers and posters in classrooms across America, Walz said that he ran (and won) in a deep red congressional district against steep odds, saying, “You know what, never underestimate a public school teacher.”

He listed his accomplishments as Governor of Minnesota, a prelude to listing Kamala Harris’s policy priorities. His state-level accomplishments align neatly with Kamala Harris’s campaign proposals. When Walz began to list Harris’s policies, he said, “Clip this portion of the video and send it to your relatives who are unsure about how to vote.”

Among the policies Walz mentioned were the following:

Cutting taxes for the middle class.

Extending the child tax credit

Taking on big pharma.

Making home-buying more affordable.

Fighting for freedom to live the life you want to lead.

Among the most important accomplishments described by Walz as governor, he said, “We made sure that every kid in state gets breakfast and lunch every day. So, while other states were banishing books, we were banishing hunger.”

Walz used “freedom” as a theme—contrasting the Democratic and Republican views of freedom. Walz framed freedom as respecting choices, including reproductive choices. He reprised the line, “We respect choices; and we have a golden rule: Mind your own damn business.” Republicans, on the other hand, see “freedom” as the right of government to interfere in your life.

Walz effectively addressed Project 2025 by saying, “I know, as a football coach, that when someone goes to the trouble of drawing up a playbook, they are going to use it!” He said Project 2025 is “an agenda that serves only the richest among us.”

He spent a few moments criticizing Trump, saying, “Trump's own people warned us about Trump. Leaders don’t spend all day insulting people.”

Two comments about events surrounding Tim Walz’s speech. First, the sight of Tim’s son, Gus, weeping with joy and saying, “That’s my dad” was heartwarming. More importantly, it spoke volumes about the love in the Walz family—a stark contrast to the fractured, transactional relationships in the Trump family. Gus’s reaction will “go viral” for being proud of his dad. You can’t pay for advertising like that.

Second, immediately before Tim Walz spoke, a former student introduced the football team members that Tim Walz helped coach to a national championship. Those players—now men—took the stage bursting with joy and affection for Walz. The GOP could not replicate that scene even if they hired actors from Craigslist.

As framed and delivered, the speech by Tim Walz was a home run.

The joyousness of the third night

During the prime-time hours, two musical acts pumped up the volume. Stevie Wonder sang Higher Ground, while John Legend and Sheila E. performed Prince’s Let's Go Crazy. Also, Neil Young granted permission to the DNC to use “Rockin’ in the Free World” as the “walk-on” music for Tim Walz. The performances helped sustain the energy and momentum from the first two nights.

Two special presentations

The organizers included two special presentations that addressed urgent issues: January 6 and Project 2025.

The video presentation on the violence of January 26 was impactful, frightening, and motivating. It needed to be done; indeed, how could Democrats not address it? This is the first post-January 6 presidential election. But, as Joe Biden found out, Americans do not seem to be motivated by dwelling on January 6. I wish it were otherwise. But they are responding to the forward-looking, positive message of the Harris-Walz ticket.

The organizers also addressed Project 2025 through Saturday Night Live cast member Keenan Thompson. Thompson interviewed four Americans and then explained how project 2025 would impact their jobs, personal choices, and access to healthcare. Although the subject is serious, the decision to approach it with humor was creative and engaging. The organizers continue to find creative ways to communicate to the American people.

Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton gave a wonderful speech but went on too long and threw off the schedule for the rest of the evening.

Among Clinton’s memorable statements were his praise for President Biden, of whom he said,

Biden healed our sick and put the best of us back to work. He repaired our alliances. He voluntarily gave up political power. I want to thank him for his courage, compassion, class, service, and sacrifice. [Spontaneous eruption of chants, “Thank you, Joe.”]

Clinton urged the delegates to temper their joy with lessons from the past—harkening back to Trump's interference in Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

We have seen more than one election slip away from us because we were distracted by phony issues. This is a brutal business. I want you to be happy. But never underestimate your adversary. They are very good at triggering doubt and buyer’s remorse. We got to be tough.

He concluded by predicting that voting for Harris and Walz would be a generational gift:

If you vote for this team and bring in this team and their breath of fresh air, you will be proud of it for the rest of your life. Your children and grandchildren will be proud of it.

The rest of the lineup

Nancy Pelosi gave a speech.

Josh Shapiro gave a passionate, barnburner, forward-looking, traditional convention speech befitting a presidential nominee. While remarkable, it felt like he was auditioning for 2028 or 2032. In fairness, he wasn’t the only person doing so on Wednesday (or previous nights). He is a prodigious speaker with a long runway ahead of him.

Amanda Gorman, the poet and activist, delivered a beautiful, thoughtful poem. Among the many fine lines in the poem, I was struck by these:

“Cohering is the hardest task history ever wrote.” “While we all love freedom, it is love that frees us all.”

Oprah Winfrey rose to the occasion. Democrats need to get Oprah out on the campaign trail for Harris-Walz. She is a gifted speaker who oozes credibility and genuineness. She noted that she is registered as an independent and “voted on values.” She said,

Character matters most of all, and decency and respect are on the ballot in 2024. Let us choose loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to any individual. Let us choose optimism over cynicism. Let us choose common sense over nonsense.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore gave a short speech in which he established himself as a leading figure in the party's future for years to come.

Pete Buttigieg was amazing, as always. He is a gifted communicator who is able to connect with Americans across the political spectrum. He described dinnertime at his home with his son and daughter, a scene immediately recognizable to hundreds of millions of Americans. He contrasted his inclusive family with the exclusive, narrow vision of family being promoted by JD Vance.

Buttigieg reminded the delegates that Vance said, “People who don’t have kids don’t have a physical commitment to the future of the country.” Buttigieg said that his service in Afghanistan “outside the wire” was “pretty damn physical” even though Buttigieg did not have kids at that time.

Buttigieg closed by saying that Republicans had “doubled down on darkness” in choosing JD Vance as their vice-presidential candidate.

After the speeches concluded, delegates stayed in the convention hall floor, cheering and dancing, not wanting the third evening to end! They understood that what happened in the convention hall on Wednesday was historic—the passing of the torch to successive generations of Democratic leaders.

RFK Jr. will withdraw and endorse Trump

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is withdrawing from the presidential race, announcing that he will endorse Trump. That endorsement confirms what we knew all: RFK Jr. was a stalking horse for Trump to help defeat Biden. The always smart Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, wrote:

My final thought is that Kennedy is so weird and now so universally recognized as weird and this endorsement — if that’s what it is — would appear so corrupt that I’m not sure it really plays as a positive. When I say corrupt, he’s been pretty visibly asking each campaign basically what their best offer is.

Kennedy’s support has shrunk to the low single digits, any impact on the presidential race will likely be de minimis.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Arthur Delaney, Daniel Marans, and Igor Bobic at HuffPost:

Republican ads suggesting Vice President Kamala Harris cared more about promoting transgender rights than boosting the economy likely contributed to Donald Trump’s victory, according to a new survey conducted after Tuesday’s election. Another poll released this week by a different Democratic firm found, however, that hardly any voters were motivated by opposition to transgender surgeries or what Republicans derisively call “boys in girls sports.” The conflicting surveys, with clashing but not totally contradictory findings, illustrate the tricky post-election analysis Democrats will need to conduct as they chart a course out of the political wilderness.

On Friday, the Democratic polling firm Blueprint released survey findings that suggest anti-trans ads hurt Harris. Blueprint asked voters to rank 25 statements about why they picked Trump instead of Harris. The two most popular reasons were that inflation was too high under the Biden administration and that too many immigrants illegally crossed the border. The third-most popular statement was that “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class.” Among swing voters who broke for Trump, the “transgender issues” criticism was the most popular reason, Blueprint found. “It was a symbol, a very effective symbol. It brings to life how voters feel that on lots of cultural and social issues, elected Democrats are so unfamiliar to them,” Alyssa Cass, a partner at Slingshot Strategies, which runs Blueprint, told HuffPost on Thursday. “So I think it was very effective in reminding voters that the Democratic Party has moved to a place that you can’t recognize in yourself and your friends and your family.”

Exit polls from Tuesday suggest inflation was a major drag for Harris, but otherwise the data doesn’t present a perfectly clear picture of what else pushed so many voters in Trump’s direction. The exit polls from Fox News and the Associated Press, for instance, found voters basically split on banning gender-affirming care for children: 47% supported the idea but 52% opposed it. A more vaguely-worded question found 54% of voters thought “support for transgender rights in government and society” had gone too far, while 22% thought it was just right and 22% said it had not gone far enough. In a Wednesday memo, the Democratic firm GQR cautioned against scapegoating trans issues for the election outcome, citing polling from the week leading up the election, which found nearly two-thirds of voters saw Trump’s trans ads. “And yet, when asked their most important issues in this election, just 4 percent — dead last on this list — identify opposing transgender surgeries and transgender kids in sports as something that drove their vote,” the firm said in its analysis.

[...] Nonetheless, moderate Democratic lawmakers have already pointed to trans issue as a reason Harris lost. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told The New York Times following the election — prompting a rebuke from one of his campaign aides, who resigned in protest. Rep. Tom Suozzi, a moderate Long Island Democrat who flipped a GOP seat in a February special election, made a similar comment. And Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Texas Democratic Party, told KUT, a local Austin, Texas, outlet on Wednesday that Democrats might consider disavowing the use of taxpayer dollars for transition care. His comments prompted immediate criticism from LGBTQ+ groups in Texas, leading him first to apologize and then, on Friday, to resign, though he claimed he was simply making room for a new generation. But other Democrats said they didn’t believe Trump’s ads attacking Harris over transgender rights were as effective as his broader message on the economy and immigration.

The Democratic Party is facing questions on what caused Kamala Harris, but a few have said that Donald Trump’s anti-trans “they/them” ads may have been one of the culprits, but that trans issues weren’t all that important when considering a vote.

[cleric-of-jank]

Parliamentary Procedure Proposal: The Stalk-call

(name sucks, someone think of a better one pls)

So there's plenty of things about actually existing democracies, be they presidential or parliamentary, that irk me, but two in particular I don't see a lot of people commenting about.

If the mechanisms of democracy are captured in such a way to make getting a genuinely possible government impossible, what is the electorate supposed to do? Constitutional safeguards around free speech and the ballot seem pretty underpowered - you can't really have courts that aren't just bureaucrats exerting their own wills, meaning there's always a risk someone will decide "free speech" obviously must exclude blasphemy or "human rights" mandates a 100% wealth tax even if only 5% of the electorate want one. So the fallback is some kind of revolt against the government. The drafters of the US constitution proposed the 2nd Amendment, but that obviously has all kinds of pitfalls and isn't guaranteed to work. "General strikes" also seem pretty susceptible to being divided and crushed, even if their organizers can overcome coordination problems. So what can there be instead?

Motte-and-bailey issues. Republicans are convinced every Democrat is Ta-Nehesi Coates in disguise, salivating at the thought of implementing racial quotas for every single job in the country and taxing every last cent of disposable income and then some to pay for an exorbiant reparations scheme that will never actually end. Similarly, Democrats are convinced Republicans are all Steve Sailer clones who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act and the 13th and 19th amendments. This is how they motivate their bases - no matter how odious voters think their own side's platform is, they see no reason to believe their opponents aren't even worse, so polarization ratchets up and candidate quality plummets down. But how can parties really convince voters that they're not actually like that? If you say "no, don't worry, we think that guy sucks too", that statement definitely isn't going to reach any opposing voters due to how the media landscape works, but it might reach some of your own voters who might become demobilized by you not being radical enough. All downside, and no upside.

I was thinking about that first issue one day when I thought of what I think is a pretty common response to this issue - some sort of "kick the bastards out" referendum, that would ban all incumbents from seeking re-election. There's a pretty big catch to this, though. It means the electorate is going to be asking a question structurally imbalanced in favor of the opposition - since they don't really have to come up with a platform, they can bring segments of voters that would otherwise be impossible to coax onto one ticket. This is sort of how the Brexit vote went down - if Leave had to decide on whether Brexit meant the UK would become Singapore, Rhodesia, or the USSR before the vote, it probably would have gone differently. Maybe a structural bias against some factions isn't that bad...but loose "anti-establishment" folks are typically lacking government expertise, so you probably would rather not. Moreover, even for normal elections, it becomes a lot easier for outsiders to run on the ~mystery~ ticket and then leap in once they've won rather than subject themselves to accountability. None of the Above probably would have beaten Hilary even more than Trump was if it and not Trump was on the ballot, even though Trump would have still been the most likely to carry the vote afterwards.

So, what can be done to fix that issue...what if the regime had some way to force the opposition to consolidate in some way if it seemed too squishy to pin down? How could that be done in an elegant way? Oh, I've thought of something! Oh, and hey, issue 2! I think it solves that too!

What if parties in the parliament were able to just appoint new parliament members directly and force their opponents to publicly declare their positions on the new members, as long as they pre-committed to not rely on their support in any votes?

This helps solve issue 1. If you're concerned that it's impossible to campaign against "Brexit", you can instead nominate Dominic Cummings to the House of Commons, and force votes on whether Dominic's controversial takes on how the UK should move would in fact be good ideas. Tories would be forced to either vote yes (allowing you to campaign on associating them with daftness from Dominic Cummings which they couldn't really deny) or no (showing voters who would support "Brexit" that they don't really have allies amongst those in power, demotivating them from using the "Brexit" vote as a way to force the issue. Sometimes it's even better - maybe the Kick the Bastards Out measure was all just a stalking horse for some rich person's campaign in the first place, and skipping the charade and directly appointing them means they can no longer use vagueness as a shield, meaning they never try to waste the electorate's time with the measure at all.

But this also helps solve issue 2! Forcing parties to make public statements that they think [radical who's ostensibly in the same direction] is good or bad means we can dispense with all of this hogwash around whether the guy you're afraid of is irrelevant or influential - if they're so irrelevant, why is "their party" so afraid to condemn them? Or maybe they do condemn them after all, and you become able to trust the other party enough to consider swinging your vote - that's good for you!

Obviously there'd need to be more intricacies to it than I'm mentioning here - the new guys you appoint to parliament couldn't have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as the elected cast, as there are plenty of hated backbenchers today that oppositions can't really capitalize off of. You'd need some grander way to make them more significant, but you would also need to do that in such a way it doesn't break normal government functions. You also need some way to scale this so actually relevant parties can use it and the Randoms Who Aren't Actually Shooting For Power can't abuse it, and to prevent stratagems like conservatives appointing a green who will vote with them on shooting down nuclear power plants because you accidentally didn't class mutual "no" votes as the same thing as mutual "yes" votes.

Of course, this isn't ever going to happen but when has that ever stopped it being fun to think of advances in political technology?

(in case you're wondering the name comes from "stalking horse" and "callout". obviously that in particular doesn't work)

[javob]

Today in my state’s House of Delegates is debate over a bill that would put restrictions on the state investment board that would force them to make investments based solely on “pecuniary factors” which is defined in the bill as “a direct and material effect in financial risk or return to beneficiaries based on appropriate investment horizons” the bill also states under this definition “Environmental, social, corporate governance or similarly oriented considerations are not pecuniary factors”

I think some of the other libertarian poasters had talked about the phenomenon of ESG as sort of corporate credit score (association of free people comes to mind) which seems to be about exactly what it is. Over all, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see that giving authority to random bodies to unilaterally say “don’t invest in this company because uhhhhh their esg score is too low” is not really a good idea from an investment standpoint. It’s great from a social control and punishing your competitors position, however.

Most of the republicans in the house are for the bill because of how esg affects natural resource extraction which are the big money makers in the state, but a few of the younger delegates are for the bill because they have an understanding of esg as a social control force, and one of the new delegates from a small county even brought up how FTX had quite a high esg score while companies like Exxon have lower scores (he even managed to use the phrase shibboleth in his short speech which I wasn’t expecting and thought was funny).

Democrats of course were against the bill, using arguments that it would put too many restrictions on the investment board, and that esg just means Environment, Social, and Governance, so how could it be a bad thing?

[dragonstepp]

American Politics

I have not talked much about American politics because this site does not appear to be very political, other than Scottish politics. But someone asked a question about what someone else thought about American politics. I replied, but it was a no-nothing reply, and just a reference to what I had done 60 years ago.

There are two biggest problems in American right now.

There are two major problems in this country right now. The first, of course, is Trump. He was so nasty when he ran for president that everyone who was angry about Barack Obama, and the freedom we have given to black people and to people whose sexual references are not strict enough in christianity.

The other is, of course, the National Rifle Association, and the big money they give to conservatives.

We had another mass shooting today in Kentucky. An ex-employee of a bank went in and killed several people and injured others. This is not being seen as a terrorist killing, but we who are in despair over the number of killings that go on everyday in every city in every state are all terrorist killings. We are a country that thrives on war, and conflict, and terrorism.

My theory about why so many children are being killed is because they nuts don't want them to grow up to vote. Possibly because their parents are either liberal, or the wrong colour, or the wrong religion. It has gotten so bad that in Nashville Tennessee, the grade school level kids were walking out of classes to protest. One thing that came out of that was that three state representatives were put up to be voted out. Sadly, it was the two coloured men that got removed, but not the white woman. Very sad, and very much to show how much racism there still is.

There is a theory going around, people like me think is a good possibility is that the far-right Republicans know they are going to lose their party - the Republican party is dying. And what is helping that along is that our young people, those not yet old enough to vote, are very progressive, and these repubs know that when they get old enough to vote, they are going to go liberal, or progressive.

So these crazy repubs in our Congress are going to get rid of as many rights for the people, based on colour, sexual-orientation not hetero, and especially against women, who the very most conservative still believe that women, as in medieval times, are lower than their dogs.

I can tell you that our government is getting so many people filing for passports that they are having a hard time getting them checked and done, and our citizens are having to wait a very long time to get their passports. We the people want to get the hell out of this country. I have no statistics about where they are wanting to move to; probably Europe, Canada, Australia. I myself would move to Scotland were I not elderly, slightly disabled, and poor. I suspect I will be dead in the next 10-15 years. I hope I will stay alive to see this country go back to what we became in the 60s-80s. Stupid, perhaps, but at least safer than we are now.

I don't leave my apartment very often. It is not a good thing because I have been a very social person, as well as working to make things better. But now I am afraid.

So maybe I am not able to explain exactly what the problem is with our citizens, but perhaps this will give some insight into what is going on in our American government.

Carol

[batboyblog]

My objection is not so much that it took him so long, as.... he's doing what every "good"/establishment/normal order whatever term you want to use for them Republican does when faced with Trump flavored fascism, quits. They make a big speech or whatever right after saying "and I give up". Mittens is gonna be replaced by some MAGA Mike Lee clone who's WAY worse than Romney is and no does not believe in Democracy, the rule of Law, or the Constitution. And Romney will shrug and go "oh well not my problem". Mitt might politely refuse to endorse this person though likely he will but he even if he doesn't endorse another vote for crowning Trump king of America forever, he won't campaign against them either.

Hell even in his "I'm quitting" interview He put in a dig at President Biden

because Biden being old is somehow equal to Trump being old and also a fascist pig. Ah yes the only issue is our leaders are old not that one of them is a rapist who tried to overthrow the US government. Joe Biden is the hero who ran for President and saved America from fascism and Mitt is out here like "lol quit flop". And thats the thing, in most of America Mittens is a no body, but in Utah, in Mormon country he is or was basically their JFK (and as boring as Mormon JFK sounds) and where was he in 2020? was he heading up "Republicans for Joe"? nope, did he quit the GOP is he quitting it now to sit as an indie? nope. Maybe he didn't fully understand till there were racist rioters in the halls of Congress screaming they were gonna kill elected officials, okay sure that'd be a wake up call. Mitt himself had a particularly close call on Jan6 so I can see that being a wake up.

in 2022, LAST YEAR, Utah's other Senator, Mike Lee was up for re-election. Lee is one of the MOST extreme Senate Republicans. Lee is ALL in for Trump. Lee worked super closely with the Trump team to overturn the 2020 elections, he was one of the stars of the Jan6 Committee report. So Mitt Romney believes his party doesn't believe in the Constitution? Mike Lee surely has to be a prime example of what he's talking about. Mitt Romney is the OTHER Senator from Utah, so he has weight, indeed people thought he had a serious chance of re-election so it's not like he's burned out in Utah. Back to 2022, a coalition of Democrats and independents hoping to pull in moderate pro-Democracy Republicans supported an independent candidate, Evan McMullin to unseat Lee. Again Lee is about as pro-Trump as any US Senator. So did Mitt endorse McMullin? campaign for him? publicly say he was gonna vote for him? nope. Again Mitt politely didn't endorse any one and sat out the race. Lee won pretty overwhelmingly but lost 15 points off his 2016 election.

Hell this year there's gonna be a special election to fill an open Congressional seat in Utah's 2nd District. In the GOP Primary there was a moderate Republican, Becky Edwards, who has been highly critical of Trump and publicly voted for Biden in 2020 (she also lead an effort that made Utah the only Red State to pass a resolution recognizing climate change as real). Did Romney endorse her? campaign for her? nope, she lost 33% to 38% against a standard Republican.

So Mittens will politely sit out the GOP primary to replace him most likely, and when some MAGA hat fascist who puts Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to shame gets the nomination Mitt will be politely quiet, he won't get involved. 2024 reporters might manage to corner him and ask who he's voting for and he'll say things like "I'd rather not say" or "I'll make my mind up when I'm in there" or a best "I'm gonna write it (name dead Republican)"

I'm not a US Senator, I'm not worth millions of dollars, I'm not a member of a Legacy political family, I'm not important to a cultural/religious voting bloc, I'm no body. But since 2015 I have knocked SO many doors, made SO many phone calls, gone to SO many political meetings. All of which I hate, I'm an autistic homebody who hates socializing and wants to be home doing nothing. But my country is on the line, its do everything I can do, make myself literally sick with social anxiety, knock on doors till my hands and feet bleed (over 2000 doors in 2022) because if I don't fascism will win. So my resentment is this, Mitt Romney thinks this is enough, that he can get credit for stating what the rest of us already knew and doing nothing to stop it.

People hold Mitt Romney in a high regard he doesn’t deserve, and a lot of the “tell-all” memoirs/biographies of politicians that come out are a waste of time, but that excerpt from the new Romney biography going around really grabbed my attention. There’s a lot of interesting things going on in there, not the least of which is that Romney has now become personally obsessed with the potential downfall of US civilization at the hands of the political party he’s spent his entire life supporting

Very easy to mock someone for only realizing this recently, but for a guy like Romney I really do believe that the full scale of this fact has hit him only in the last few years

[bllsbailey]

After Bashing Half of America, Obamas and Clintons Now Issue Statements on 'Grace'

Now that the resounding presidential Trump election win is in the books, statements about the president-elect's victory are flying in from luminaries around the world. The latest to opine on the matter are the Obamas and the Clintons, and although both their statements expressed love for our country and our democracy (which we all know is actually a republic), neither mentioned that the four of them have been bashing half the electorate on a regular basis. It’s hard to find unity and grace when they've been calling Republicans—particularly Trump voters—a “basket of deplorables,” “bitter [folks who] cling to their guns,” blatantly fascist, “garbage,” and so much more. 

Yet now they want us to roll over and play nice.

First, the Clintons, whose message was mercifully shorter than the Obamas' and more to the point:

Billary started out with a real knee-slapper: 

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz ran a positive, forward-looking campaign to be proud of.

Positive? What was uplifting about claiming their opponents were the same as one of the most evil, mass-murdering totalitarian regimes that ever existed? Twisted.

"The American people have voted, and Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will be the next President and Vice President of the United States. We wish them well and hope they will govern for all of us.” They added: “We must remember that America is bigger than the results of any one election, and what we as citizens do now will make the difference between a nation that moves forward or one that falls back. We need to solve our problems and seize our opportunities together. The future of our country depends on it.”

That's lovely. I'm sure plenty of folks might have thoughts in response, but the Clintons don't want to hear it. If you try to reply, you can't:

I wonder if the reason for their closing comments is because, a little over two weeks ago, Hillary said about the now-president-elect’s closing campaign rally, “Trump [is] actually reenacting the [Nazi] Madison Square Garden rally in 1939.” 

Can you feel the love?

The Obamas' statement was unfortunately longer-winded and full of their usual passive-aggressive tone and gaslighting. They, too, congratulated Trump and told us how amazing the failed Harris-Walz campaign was, but they also threw out some other junk that wasn’t so feel-good.

I read it so you don’t have to:

Barack and Michelle:

"This is obviously not the outcome we had hoped for, given our profound disagreements with the Republican ticket on a whole host of issues. But living in a democracy is about recognizing that our point of view won't always win out, and being willing to accept the peaceful transfer of power.

I'll skip most of the rest, but this paragraph doesn't jibe with their recent behavior:

"In a country as big and diverse as ours, we won't always see eye-to-eye on everything. But progress requires us to extend good faith and grace—even to people with whom we deeply disagree. That's how we've come this far, and it's how we'll keep building a country that is more fair and more just, more equal and more free."

Remember, it was just in October when Barack went into race-baiting mode and belittled black men who did not plan to vote for Harris. He basically said they were misogynists:

And you're coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses, I've got a problem with that. Because part of it makes me think -- and I'm speaking to men directly -- part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren't feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you're coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that… That's not acceptable.

See: The Thrill Is Gone: Barack Obama's Scolding of Black Men Torched by Prominent African Americans

It was plain to see in this election cycle that the Clintons and Obamas have all lost their former luster. They came across as nasty, bitter, and full of rage against half their countrymen.

I’m not ready to talk about grace and unity just yet, thanks. I am going to need a few days to gloat over this monstrous victory. We can talk later. 

[2024patriot]

The Party Starts Today

August 18, 2024

The real show, the Democrat Convention in Chicago, begins today/

My question about the Kamala team surviving the Democrat Convention resulted in many responses, virtually all believing that her team would endure. What was interesting was that a few people had concerns about Walz surviving the convention; they worried that his teaming up with Kamala has produced too liberal of a ticket.

The comedy team on the Babylon Bee posted a story that Tim Walz, after two weeks with Kamala, signed back in to the national guard and requested immediate redeployment to Iraq. Rumors over the last three years tell that she’s a very hard person to work with.

One thing that we know for sure is that the democrat’s convention will be a hate-fest for DJT; it is getting worse than I thought.  On Wednesday, David Frum compared Donald Trump to murderer Charles Manson.  This was reported by the Media Research Center’s Newsbuster’s site: 

“The Trump = Hitler analogy is getting old. We've been in desperate need of some fresh material! How jejune. 

Unsurprisingly, Trump-loathing journalist David Frum appeared on CNN This Morning today to supply it. 

Frum dug up, and approvingly quoted, this line from Republican consultant Mike Murphy -- or to be completely up to date, "Republican Voters Against Trump" consultant Mike Murphy. 

"Asking Donald Trump to talk about policy, it's like teaching Charles Manson to foxtrot. He can manage a step or two, but then he's going to put a pencil in your eye, because he's Charles Manson. And Donald Trump is Donald Trump."

Frum went on to call Trump an "insult comic" who "knows how to abuse and denigrate and humiliate and demean."

The irony was apparently lost on Frum that whereas he trashed Trump for denigrating people, he himself had just analogized Trump to Charles Manson—the personification of pure evil. Maybe Frum could serve as the warm-up act for Trump's next insult-comic appearance.”

One charge against Trump that keeps popping us is that he wants to make abortion illegal across the nation. It is a calculated lie.  It is impossible for him, or any president, to do such a thing.

Boing:  A group has sprung up named “Republican Voters Against Trump.”  It has to be made up.  Any republican with an operable brain cell would not vote for any of today’s democrats.  Obviously, this is a creation of the democrat party.  They are very creative.

Hama strikes:  I just read that in the warm-ups to the convention, a group of pro-Hamas demonstrators invaded the festivities and disrupted the meeting.  So, we are off to a good start.

The Social Security Scare: I am seeing advertisements that claim various republicans want to end Medicare and Social Security. These claims are untrue. 

Some politicians want to allow private social security accounts, where insurance companies provide the coverage and investments. This is a change, but one that offers better security and some big government politicians don’t like it one bit.  Remember, the politicians have raided the social security lockbox and spent all the money on their own programs.  They do not want to lose control over their funding,

When private social security accounts were proposed during Bill Clinton’s presidency, he quickly charged that republicans “want to end Social Security as we know it.”  That was a very crafty statement; a half-truth that deliberately misdirected the meaning to his trusting citizens.  

It worked and big government won.  Now the democrats are at it again,

Our Press at work:  JD Vance was asked yesterday “Why don’t you smile more?”  This question was typical of the leftist media who won’t address the constitutional responsibilities of the politicians; instead, they address personal idiosyncrasies.  Charisma matters more to them than competence, their candidates prove this assertion.

Panel Below:  Wikipedia has removed the awards that V.P. candidate J.D. Vance received during his military duty.  The swamp runs deep.

Tucker Carlson in Australia, speaking to a reporter:

“I really resent what I’m seeing across the West in the last fifteen years, which is a sea change from my youth when my father was a reporter, this alignment between media organizations and government. I find it disgusting, actually, 

I think it’s a perfect inversion of what you are supposed to do.  You are a journalist; your job is to challenge power on behalf of the powerless.

It is not to align with the powerful against the powerless. And that is precisely what you have done.”

 I’ll write again in a couple of days,  

Steve

[princetonsjp]

Matt Jenkins: Jack of All Trades and Parties

By Daniel Seog

The quintessential politician is someone who has studied sociology or government (possibly even law) in their undergraduate education and then went on to pursue even higher education in their respective interests. Their policies follow a clear line of either democratic or republican practices, showing an obvious lean in intended audience. But not Matt Jenkins.

Jenkins did not pursue sociology, government, or law. He studied biology. At Ocean County Community College and Rutgers University, Jenkins pursued lab work in the biomedical and biochemical fields. But due to the loneliness and mundane cycles of working in a laboratory, he realized it wasn’t for him. But he still wanted to help people.

Politics was a chance for Jenkins to be a part of his community while being more close with his citizens. His education shows how he could be a politician and ready to apply for medical school – a well-rounded background.

But this well-roundedness doesn’t stop at his collegiate responsibilities. His policies as a democrat, while passionate, don’t follow a constant line common to liberal ideologies. 

He believes in a “legal status” rather than genuine citizenship in the states for specific immigrants, but his viewpoints on abortion are what is commonly considered as “liberal.”

“I know it’s more than about a 22 year old woman not using protection,” Jenkins said. “If men were getting abortions, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.”

He further sympathizes with women who need abortion resources.

“I can’t imagine what that’s like to have that baby sitting inside you dead, and doctors say they can’t help you,” Jenkins continued.

He also feels that climate change is real and should be addressed. However, his duty, to him, is to simplify the jargon of the technologies that may intimidate people from fighting against the warming of our Earth. More specifically, he feels that the country should move toward nuclear energy and how it could be a big part of America’s future.

Although these ideas have been reflected in democratic policies, Jenkins couldn’t be classified as a fully democratic politician. When looking at his thoughts on protests in the current international and national political climate, he voiced how “they are there just to cause trouble.”

No one expects politicians to be completely homogeneous to a political party. This would lead to radicalism and animosity amongst the American people. So politicians like Jenkins shouldn’t be criticized for their mixture of ideas that have brewed under their prior experiences and backgrounds. Jenkins probably just knows a little more about cells than most of his counterparts.

[lost-and-cursed]

Hmm. I don't really have time right now to go in depth. But essentially liberalism is not inherently leftist. It's first and foremost exist on the axis of authoritarianism - liberalism.

And for the longest time it was one of the most progressive movements. Therefore switching to axis conservatism - liberalism. It opposed monarchism, nazism and any other regressive movements seeking to limit personal rights and freedoms.

And it continues on this route in modern world, in the US being equated with democratic party as opposed to conservative republican party.

But while historically it often opposed regressive systems of government, now most people proclaiming themselves liberalists or being called such subscribe under idea of neoliberalism.

The neoliberalism as ideology is closely tied to ideas of free market, lack of governmental control in economic sphere and other center-right ideas. Many big ideologists of neoliberal thought were proponents of pro-capitalists ideas that were later tied into neocolonialism. Good example of how you can be liberal and still lean right are libertarians.

Generally speaking while many liberals today continue to support individual rights and freedoms they tend to do that in the framework of pro-capitalist ideas, and upholding the system. Which is why many people laying further left on the spectrum demanding restructuring of the system or destroying it, find it unsatisfying.

Left doesn't mean necessarily progressive or not authoritarian. Leftism is a world-view that puts emphasis on class struggle and access of working class to economical and social benefits. It's largely economical ideology. You can seek rights and freedoms without asking for free education, housing and larger taxes. But you can't be leftist and believe in free market.

I jumbled the explanation because it's not my preferred language and I have other engagements.

Essentially from what I observed liberal feminism is the community that doesn't seek to include structural understanding of discrimination including class, race and etc. And largely defined by separation from it Intersectional feminism that does seek structural changes and more in-depth analysis of how systemic structures impact sexism. It's by no means ideal term and often used disparagingly against political opponents as many political designations do.

But at core the term seeks to point out right-leaning pro-capitalist interpretation of feminist ideas.

[Tiktok user Clairrorism]

[whereareroo]

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY?

WF THOUGHTS (7/10/24).

My plan for today was to give you a comprehensive analysis of Trump v. United States. That’s the recent Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity for Donald Trump. It’s a big deal. I’m finally back to my old routine, and I figured that I’d dive into a meaty topic. Many of you have asked for me to comment on Trump v. United States.

Fortunately for you, my plans have changed. Unless I write a twenty page report, there is no way for me to give you a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court decision. There are five separate opinions. All combined, the opinions span 111 pages. In addition to being long, the decision is extremely convoluted and very difficult to understand. Even distinguished constitutional experts were confused by the decision. William Baude is a very conservative constitutional scholar and a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago Law School. The conservative Justices frequently rely on his scholarly work to support their decisions. Baude was confused by Trump v. United States. He questioned the creation of “novel principles of presidential immunity” that create a “vague shield over the presidency” that won’t be understood until after “extensive litigation in lower courts.” He noted that the unusual decision from the Court “went well beyond any specific part of the Constitution or any determinate constitutional tradition.” One of Baude’s progressive friends, a constitutional expert at Yale named Achilles Reed Amar, was also confused by the decision. He wrote: “The Court’s curious and convoluted majority opinion turns the Constitution’s text and structure inside out and upside down, saying things that are flatly contradicted by the document’s unambiguous letter and obvious spirit.” In a word, Akhil Amar says that the decision is “incoherent.”

If Baude and Amar struggle to understand the decision, there’s no way that I can give you a detailed analysis without occupying at least an hour of your time. Instead, I’ve decided to stick to the big picture. Are you OK with that? If not, call Baude or Amar for a more detailed discussion.

Let’s start with some very basic points. The Constitution does not give immunity to the president. The Constitution doesn’t say a word about presidential immunity. Likewise, no federal law gives immunity to the president. We were founded upon the principle that “no man is above the law.” That means that everybody- -including the president- -must comply with our criminal laws.

Don’t accept my word that presidential immunity doesn’t exist. Accept the word of a staunch Republican, President Gerald Ford. Because he was a criminal who was about to be impeached and criminally indicted, Richard Nixon resigned. Allegedly to save the nation from additional trauma, Ford gave Nixon a pardon with respect to all of his crimes. If Ford believed that Nixon had immunity, there would have been no need for a pardon. Ford, who wasn’t the brightest President in history, knew that presidents aren’t immune from criminal prosecution. Until last week, we all believed that presidents aren’t immune from criminal prosecution.

Despite the fact that the law was stacked against them, Trump’s lawyers claimed that he couldn’t be prosecuted in his criminal cases because of “presidential immunity.” Without any constitutional language to support that claim, they did some constitutional gymnastics and argued that the structure of the Constitution creates presidential immunity. How? They argued that the Constitution creates three branches of government, and that our structural “separation of powers” prohibits Congress or the courts from using criminal laws to restrain the powers of the president. Trump’s arguments were totally rejected by the trial court and the initial appellate court. Undaunted, Trump asked the Supreme Court to look at the case and create new law in his favor.

The federal prosecutors vigorously opposed Trump’s claim of immunity. They noted that the Constitution doesn’t mention presidential immunity. With respect to the structure of the Constitution, they argued that under “checks and balances” it is totally proper for the president to be prosecuted in court under criminal laws passed by Congress.

Chief Justice Roberts, who assigns the task of writing opinions, appointed himself to write the majority opinion in Trump v. United States. Even though his opinion is only 43 pages long, it is very difficult to understand. It creates obscure legal concepts and obscure legal tests. Professors Baude and Amar are still struggling to understand the parameters of the decision from Roberts. Despite multiple opinions, the majority view was supported by six Justices. Three Justices dissented, and two of them wrote scathing critiques of the Roberts decision.

How did Justice Roberts make such a mess? He tried to please everybody. That never works. Let’s say that you’re a baker and you’re making a cake. And let’s say that in addition to your own recipe you stupidly incorporate conflicting suggestions from three or four other bakers. We all know that you’re going to end up with a cake that doesn’t look good, doesn’t taste good, is hard to swallow, and is difficult to digest. That’s what happened here. Instead of creating a legal masterpiece, Roberts created a pile of legal rubbish.

Because Trump is the first president or ex-president to face criminal indictment, the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of presidential immunity. Instead of focusing on the Trump case, Roberts decided to set a legal standard that will apply to all past and future presidents. He came up with a confusing scheme that creates full presidential immunity for some actions taken by a president, no immunity for other actions taken by a president, and possible immunity for yet another category of actions taken by a president. Join the club if you’re already confused.

For presidential actions that are the exclusive domain of the president under the Constitution (such as deploying troops or conducting foreign affairs), Roberts ruled that full criminal immunity is necessary to preserve the “separation of powers” and protect all presidents from wrongful intrusion by criminal laws created by Congress or prosecutorial action in the courts. For actions taken by a president that are not related to his presidential duties (such as actions taken in connection with a political campaign), Roberts ruled that there is no criminal immunity. For generalized presidential actions that are not specifically and exclusively allocated to the president under the Constitution, Roberts ruled that there might be immunity unless the prosecutors show that criminally prosecuting that action would not deter future presidents from doing their job. The whole scheme is as clear as mud. Some stuff is immune. Some stuff isn’t. Otherwise, the answer is “maybe.”

How muddy is the scheme created by Roberts? Put on your legal hat and let’s talk about bribery:

•Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution expressly says that a president can be impeached for bribery.

•Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution expressly indicates that, irrespective of impeachment, officials engaged in criminal behavior “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” In other words, criminal prosecution for bribery is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

So what happens under the Roberts scheme if a president takes a bribe in return for sending troops to assist a foreign dictator? The Constitution says that he can be criminally prosecuted. Strictly applied, the Robert’s test says that the president is immune because the action taken (deploying troops) falls under the president’s exclusive authority. Do you see the legal mess? Should a president be free to take bribes related to his most critical functions? Should a president be free to accept bribes in return for granting pardons (another exclusive presidential power) to terrorists?

Roberts realized that he created a monster. Instead of dealing with the monster himself, and applying his novel scheme to the Trump case, he put the monster in a box and sent everything back to the trial court. Roberts did not decide any specific issue related to Trump. It’s now up to the trial court to decipher and apply the confusing scheme created by Roberts. The Trump case is politically toxic, and Roberts clearly didn’t want to get his own hands dirty by actually deciding the immunity issues related to Trump.

So where do we stand? Maybe Trump has presidential immunity with respect to some of the criminal charges that he’s facing. Maybe he doesn’t. Maybe it’s a mixed bag. We won’t know for many months. We’re only in the second or third inning of a nine inning game. There’s a long way to go in this saga. If Trump loses this election, these issues will eventually go back to the Supreme Court again. If Trump wins the election, Trump will have the power to have all of the federal charges against him dismissed. It’s all very frustrating.

I’m sorry that this is so long. I’m sorry that so many important questions remain unanswered. Don’t feel bad if you’re confused. The top legal minds are confused too. One way or another, at some point this will come to an end. Nothing lasts forever.

[bookoformon]

"Remember." Moroni, Chapter 10. Conclusion to the Book of Mormon.

I was walking down the street six years ago when I had this unswering need to figure out what was up with those kooky Mormons, and I started reading their Book. It was the worst mistake in my life. I have suffered greatly, long and long at the hands of these very strange immoral persons for long and long in every possible way. They put on a good show with their freckle faced, apple cheeked, coiffed dudes in starched white shirts with name tags on them, and very formal church services, but underneath, they are the most vile, evil, polluted, and diseased sub-species of humanity one could ever hope not to meet.

One day, I was not precisely where I was supposed to be and met a man who trafficked in drugs and underage porn for the Mormons, some of whom were very prominent in world government, like Josh Hawley, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, King Charles, and others of their ilk. Washington DC is a small town. I spoke to the police several times about this but nothing prevented their activities from proceeding. A shame for the many hundreds of little boys and girls they filmed, raped, even killed waiting for an appropriate federal if not global response to what I discovered.

When they learned I turned them into the authorities, the Mormons, who were invited by Donald Trump, attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Once again they were not properly prosecuted or apprehended and again, I was sexually assaulted, including by the President himself hundreds of times and left for dead in mid-December at a hotel on Vermont, Avenue NW. As I have said under separate cover, in their employ and company were members of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian Republican Guard, indicating a much deeper agenda that just gay kiddie porn, about which the Mormons are positively obssessed, along with the extraction of repurposing of male boy semen.

They talk about and lagabout doing nothing else but extracting and inserting the stuff in the strangest of places and manners, all the while fueled by enough crystal method, porn, bondage gear, and boy buttholes to fill a circus big top the size of at least two Wal Mart Super Centers. This they do when they aren't fucking around with global geopolitics, elections, picketing, yelling, screaming or defiling the ground every where they step foot.

At first I thought they were just weird, but I did not suspect how dangerous or how widespread their religious fervor actually was. I thought they were just defending their turf, the prevalence of their practices of incest, child abuse, and drug abuse, but as it turns out they were planning to attack Israel, kill every Jew, Muslim, and every typically developed adult living there. Then along with their friends in Russia, China, North Korea and elsewhere, try to conquer the world. Thanks to our negligence of the crimes of Donald Trump they almost got away with it.

They attacked Israel on October 7 and thousands of innocent people are dead, but at least the secret is out and the world can respond. The sight of some of the very same cunts that raped me running towards the settlements in Israel and beating drums in front of universities within the guises of freedom fighters enraged me in ways I cannot explain. Especially after the body count was tallied, is tallied now all the time.

I too lost everyone I love and everything I own trying to survive the filth called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but I survived, and just as I planned, discovered the long lost secret of the Book of Mormon, lost since Abraham Lincoln, the last great Mormon Prophet was assassinated in 1865.

The Book of Mormon is as I have said the greatest American artifact and one of the most significant in human history itself. The authoring of the Book did one thing that has never been done since time began- it aroused an entire nation against the horror of slavery and genocide of the black man without hesitation and the effort was successful. Not before nor since has the world witnessed such Christian activism.

If we believe God would send for Moses to free the Israelites from Pharaoh in a work of fiction, surely we now we know he would do it for real to soothe the cries of the black man in America and this, He and His Prophet did indeed do.

How we must wish the real Mormons were still with us today instead of the ones that are the seminal residue of the losers that were left behind after the real saints of the faith were hosed off by anti-abolitionist forces out of revenge for Emancipation Day. All 6,000 original Mormons were killed, their identities lost, all but one, the most famous American to have ever lived.

The final chapter of the Book, like all good religious texts is hooked to the first. After the chapter concludes we will unveil the final mystery contained in the Book of Mormon and send everyone on their way.

I remain determined to end the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and bury every member, Donald Trump in particular, and end the Republican Party out of vengeance for what they did to this country and its allies. I believe the Book of Mormon can help all of us heal and make of ourselves a better people after this revenge is complete.

CHAPTER 10

A testimony of the Book of Mormon comes by the power of the Holy Ghost—The gifts of the Spirit are dispensed to the faithful—Spiritual gifts always accompany faith—Moroni’s words speak from the dust—Come unto Christ, be perfected in Him, and sanctify your souls. About A.D. 421.

1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

9 For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom;

10 And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

11 And to another, exceedingly great faith; and to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

12 And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;

13 And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;

14 And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;

15 And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;

16 And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.

17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.

18 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that every good gift cometh of Christ.

19 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men.

20 Wherefore, there must be faith; and if there must be faith there must also be hope; and if there must be hope there must also be charity.

21 And except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope.

22 And if ye have no hope ye must needs be in despair; and despair cometh because of iniquity.

23 And Christ truly said unto our fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which are expedient unto me.

24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God.

26 And wo unto them who shall do these things away and die, for they die in their sins, and they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God; and I speak it according to the words of Christ; and I lie not.

27 And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?

28 I declare these things unto the fulfilling of the prophecies. And behold, they shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the everlasting God; and his word shall hiss forth from generation to generation.

29 And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.

30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.

31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled.

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

34 And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

THE END

The Values in Gematria are:

1 Nephi 1: 1- I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

The Number is 11412, יא‎דא‎ב ‎"I will love it."

Moroni 10: 1: 1 Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

The Number is 15914, י״הטאד, Y'Hatad "Pin in place what is at stake..."

10:34: And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

The Number is 9408, ט‎דאֶפֶס‎ח, tdafesah, "The place where people who love one another gather to celebrate the Passover."

Here ends the forum called Time and Spirit, a splendid Midrash on the scripture known as the Book of Mormon entitled an Additional Testament of Jesus Christ.

"You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. "Don't abuse or take advantage of strangers; you, remember, were once strangers in Egypt."

-Exodus 22:21.

The Book of Mormon, which was given by the Archangel Metatron, "who lives within the cell as its potency sap" begins in 600 BCE in Jerusalem in Nephi 1, and ends at 421 AD in the Book of Mormon its namesake in the very same place. The final Gematria "600 BC to 421 AD" is 160, אס‎ ‎"The Ace". Who completes the Book of Mormon and celebrates the Passover is verily of the potential to be a King of Israel.

Who taps into this potent power of the Mor, the Myrrh, the Balsam of God and grants the freedom of America to the rest shall be its new Prophet and spread the Good News to those who need to hear it the most.

It was my sincere hope the Church would reform America and make it great again, that this uniquely miraculous manifestation of the Spirit of God in the lives and lifetimes of man would repeat itself. I had a vision of weaponless, corruption free nation with an LDS synagogue on every corner, and everyone young and old in our country would love going in order to learn about the Book of Mormon, our own uniquely American scripture. There is still so much we can learn from it. That dream is not dead.

[indynerdgirl]

Nikki Haley just suspended her presidential campaign.

And while it was pretty obvious for a while now that she wasn't going to be the Republican nominee, I'm not only disapointed, but I'm also just so frustrated as a Conservative. Yes, the economy was better during Trump's presidency, but he is way too polarizing as a person now and, imo, he's going to end up doing more harm than good.

This country has basically been in a political crisis since 2008 when Obama was elected. The country went too far left then and overcorrected by going too far right with Trump, only to overcorrect by going too far left with Biden. And now we're about to overcorrect again by going too far right AGAIN with Trump while all of the voices of reason that are in the middle are not only getting shouted out but don't have the money to run a campaign big enough to be a viable third option.

If Trump really wanted to help this country, he would not have run for president again, he would have put all of his support behind someone who isn't a polarizing personality, someone who could actually start to bring both sides together and finally start erasing this idiotic hardline "our side vs their side" political mess we're stuck in.

I am 36 years old and my first political memory was a civics lesson in Kindergarten about voting for president during the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. I also can remember my parents and grandparents watching the news and listening to talk radio at the time and while there were disagreements between both sides, there wasn't this angry and harmful vitriol for each other we have now because there wasn't a 24/7 news cycle keeping everything in front of us. I swear the internet and social media have absolutely ruined our ability as a society to have actual thoughtful and civil discourse.

What's crazy is that George freakin' Washington warned us in his farewell address that this exact situation would happen if we weren't careful and we didn't listen (bolded sections by me).

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Washington’s Farewell Address, September 17 1796

[mrbopst]

My Sound Advice column for Brick Weekly 2/10/20010

It is reasonable to wonder if love is always a good thing. For it’s many virtues, love compels many who feel it to act in ways that are thoroughly unsavory. It is a blinding emotion where thought and reason are often forsaken. Maybe that is why there is such a need to be in love. Thought and reason requires considered contemplation where as love operates almost exclusively on pure emotion. 

And when people are driven by pure emotion, bad things happen. 

Recently, a Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll of 2,003 Republicans conducted this month has found that a little over a half (53 percent) actually believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. I know this may be impossible, but divorce how you feel about either of these people and evaluate both purely on their merits as if both were turning in faceless applications for the job of running the country. One candidate is a former beauty queen contestant that has a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism (with a minor in political science) from the University of Idaho and the other is a graduate of Harvard Law School, magna cum laude and Columbia University with a BA in Political Science. One worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School before becoming a three-term senator from one of the most populated states in the union and the other served on city council in Wasilla, Alaska (population 5,469) later becoming the Mayor of city and eventually governor of the state a position the applicant resigned from before the end of their term. Based on this information alone, which of these two applicants would you hire to run the country? Is it even close? If it is, if you are actually in a quandary over who is the most qualified of the two, well, I don’t know what to say. 

Obviously, judging qualified candidates isn’t your forte.

People love Sarah Palin. I think this because a lot of her followers want to fuck her. When I went to the Palin rally at the Richmond International Raceway in October of 2008, I overheard more people talking about her physical attributes than her potential governing ability. Many seemed to be enamored with her solely because of her fuckability. And it is because of these lustful urges that the true devotees of all things Palin can not view her objectively even when her rhetoric and actions are in direct conflict with their romanticized image of her and the movement she come to represent. At the first Tea Party Convention held last week in Nashville, the populist movement turned out to be big money politics as usual. The convention was held at the upscale Gaylord Opryland Hotel, charged $550 for admission and organizers of the event (the for-profit Tennessee corporation Tea Party Nation headed by Nashville-based criminal-defense lawyer Judson Phillips) have been accused of secrecy and corruption by the very people it claims to speak for, threatened lawsuits against dissenters unhappy about the direction of the event and overall movement. When some voiced their dissatisfaction with the event, their ire was not directed at Sarah Palin despite her reported and decidedly un-grass rootsy $100,000 speaking fee that resulted in $349 per-ticket cost to people who wanted to attend the speech. If anything, any reasonable criticism of her frightening lack of competence only strengthens the irrationality of the love they feel for her. "I doubt there is another public figure in our country who gives liberals a bigger case of the hives than our special guest today," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said at a campaign rally on Super Bowl Sunday in his introduction for Palin who is endorsing the governor in the upcoming election, "At the very mention of her name, the liberals, the progressives, the media elites, they literally foam at the mouth." That’s a pretty strange proclamation of someone’s worth, isn’t it? If the ability to offend is the yardstick by which someone’s worth is measured, then I know a lot people who are stellar individuals, but the larger question is this; Is that rage, that frothing of the mouth of which Perry and other Palin enthusiasts site as her defining attribute really just a perfectly justifiable response when reasonable people are confronted with something ethically repugnant? Like someone who keeps sticking his dick in a blender after they’ve been told what irreparable physical harm it will cause them, they cling to their bloody stump logic that Sarah Palin is what our country needs.

But that’s love for you. It sometimes makes people stupid.

Chris Bopst February 8th, 2010

[unpredictablestuff]

I don't agree with all of the things people blame on Reagan, being able to remember things the way they were before him and how things changed after him, but one of the things he definitely did do was introduce the term "welfare queen' into the national conversation.

Believe it or not, there was a time when Americans thought the government should help poor single mothers until their children were grown. This kind of government assistance was generally what people thought of when they said "welfare."

Reagan did not like this. He took an example of one woman who abused the system and turned it into a meme. Not that it was hard. The country was already full of snide comments about single women having children so they could keep their welfare benefits. They were almost always made by white men and referring to Black women.

Still, the welfare system outlived him. It didn't end until Bill Clinton worked with Republicans in Congress to "end welfare as we know it" and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children became Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, with its time limits and its unforgiving work requirements (no vacations for you, young lady).

Reagan didn't start the backlash against welfare. He also didn't end the program. But he gave a big push to the propaganda and by the 1990s it was generally agreed that no one could become US President unless they opposed it.