#…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.

[qqueenofhades]

Another optimistic result from last night. Michigan's state legislature went blue for the first time since the Reagan administration. Dems were a superminority four years ago and now we run the entire state government, thanks in no small part to the independent redistricting commission that was created via a statewide ballot proposal in 2018.

We also passed a measure to protect abortion rights and broaden/strengthen voting rights. Basically, last night I had stress dreams all night about the end of democracy and I woke up to some good news. Things still aren't great and I'm anxious about races across the country, but I'm hopeful for the first time in a long time.

Michigan, Colorado, and Pennsylvania all had particularly good nights. Michigan Democrats won the governor and secretary of state races against cuckoo crazypants Q-challengers, protected abortion access, flipped the legislature, and expanded voting rights and access. In Colorado, all the Democratic incumbents won in a walk and might get an extra House seat from newly created CO-8. The biggest news there is that MAGA Barbie Lauren Boebert is still behind by about ~3500 votes in CO-3 with almost all the votes in. This is a R+9 district and shouldn't even be close. In Pennsylvania, Fetterman picked up a Senate seat for the Democrats despite all the doom and gloom and the intense GOP focus on Dr. Quack, Democrat Josh Shapiro easily beat MAGA lunatic Doug Mastriano for governor, and the state legislature is agonisingly close to flipping Democrat or at least almost even control.

Other morning-after thoughts from about four and a half hours of sleep:

As I said last night, the Democrats and Florida are Charlie Brown and the football. This isn't entirely their fault, as DeSantis has made it into his personal fiefdom and redrew the already-red maps to be EVEN MORE RED, threatened voters with his own goon squad, and otherwise turned it into Fascist Disneyland, literally. He cruised to re-election (ugh), but we still don't know how that plays outside his carefully curated media bubble where he only does interviews with right wing hacks like Fox and never answers tough questions. Lil Marco Rubio likewise beat Val Demings. Double ugh. So yeah, Florida Democrats are MIA. At least we got the first Gen Z member of Congress, 25 year old Democrat Maxwell Frost.

Whatever its untapped demographics, and unfair restrictions from obviously nonsensical voting laws, on the institutional level, Texas is not a blue state either. It just isn't. Beto ran a good campaign, but yet again, it wasn't close and Texas is just... Texas.

Hey anyone else think we should just let Florida and Texas secede?

However, my heartfelt sympathies to sane Floridans and Texans who worked hard but still had to see the same old crazy win.

Ohio and North Carolina also had Republicans win their Senate races. Tim Ryan and Cherie Beasley ran strong campaigns but it wasn't enough to overcome the increasing reddish tilt of those states (especially Ohio, which is also starting to look lost for the foreseeable future). However, they were both replacing retiring Republicans, so no change as far as the balance of power. Still despicable that that carpetbagging hack JD Vance is in the Senate, though.

Jury is still out in Arizona, where both Democratic governor and Senate candidates have narrow leads (governor more narrow), but if Katie Hobbs and Mark Kelly can pull this out, every single MAGA election denier candidate for governor/SOS will have lost.

That is GOOD NEWS for democracy.

Swingy Nevada is still looking dicey, though. As expected, its Democratic governor and Senate incumbent are behind after Election Day vote counting. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto is in a slightly better position than Governor Steve Sisolak. If big blue Clark County (Vegas) delivers its usual tranches of Democratic mail vote, they could both still probably win (CCM somewhat more likely since her deficit is smaller), but Nevada kept us anxiously waiting for days on end and seems fully set to do it again.

If Senate control comes down to yet another Georgia runoff between Raphael Warnock and Herschel "Me Good At Concussions And Abortions" Walker, I am going to scream.

Warnock is ahead but probably not enough to avoid a runoff under Georgia's ludicrous Jim Crow Senate rules where a candidate has to reach 50% to win outright.

Stacey Abrams also lost again to Brian Kemp. Ugh.

New York Democrats won the governor, AG, and Senate races, in not too much surprise but some of the late polling was close. They've had some struggles in suburban and rural NY, though managed to keep Pat Ryan's seat from the recent special election.

Way too many white people are still voting for Republicans, with the noted exception of 18-29 year olds, the only white age demographic to vote Democratic (by almost 2 to 1).

Looking at the data, 18-29 year olds from all demographics voting Blue are quite probably the only reason there wasn't a red wave. Good job, guys. I give you a lot of stick on here, but well done.

God, when will all those old white Republicans finally croak. They vote like clockwork every time and it's always bad.

Abortion access won everywhere it was on the ballot, including in deep red Kentucky (not overturning the current ban, alas, but rejecting a state constitutional amendment to ban it). Abortion rights are popular! Who knew.

This is an absolutely stunningly good result for an incumbent president's first midterm in any year, let alone with 8.5% inflation, economic pain, crazy fascists, and all the rest. Obama lost 63 House seats in 2010. So far, there hasn't really been a major change, and we still don't know who will control the House, after a lot of doomsters were insisting it would be Republican by 9pm ET on election night.

Democratic incumbents also won several tough re-election races in seats they would probably have lost in a red wave year.

Sarah Palin appears likely to lose in Alaska for the second time in three months. HA.

Trump was by no means the kingmaker. Almost all of his handpicked candidates have lost, with the exception of Vance in Ohio. Jury still out on Laxalt in Nevada (come THROUGH for CCM, Vegas, PLEASE).

Midterms are now not quite over, but at least moving to the rear view mirror. So when is Trump gonna get fucking indicted. That is the major next step on the Save Democracy checklist.

I likewise didn't think it would happen right after the midterms, regardless of who won; early 2023 remains my best guess. But also, like. Soon, please??

Anyway. If we lose the House (still not for sure) but keep the Senate, we can at least continue to confirm judges and other such important things. Having a tiny Republican majority (bleck) in the House would at least make it more difficult for them to do anything outrageously stupid, or at least have it succeed, as they would be sure to waste everyone's time with pointless stunts anyway.

Meh.

Still, though. By any metric, a big failure for Republicans, considering what their expectations were and how goddamn hard the media tried to help them at every turn, and a good showing for democracy as Democratic control was retained in key swing states and election deniers did not win any of their targets.

Stay tuned for more Election PutinDestielNevadaNovember5th...uh...8th redux!!!

UGH, NOT AGAIN.

[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]

[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

[eddiegirls]

hey I was wondering there's any actual leftist politician in the USA? (it sounds like irony but it's not 😭 I just mean the ' left ' in the USA is not left to most countries point of view, so I was wondering if there's that fits better into the left pattern from outside USA)

hmm well imo no, but some would disagree. the democrats are pretty much the only "left wing" with any power that we have, and i use that term loosely. you may already know a lot of this bc ik american politics dominate the internet but i will give an overview: dems are socially liberal and generally thought of as the party that cares about minorities/marginalized people and promoting social welfare. their party policies are not leftist at all though, since they are still capitalist and still support US imperialism and neocolonialism abroad. the "left" has arguably achieved certain wins within the US, but i would attribute those wins more to citizens fighting to force Congress or the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to address issues. note - although SCOTUS are not elected, each justice tends to align with one party or the other and their decisions usually reflect that.

americans kind of tend to put democrats in two loose categories: moderates/centrists and progressives. moderates/centrists are usually "establishment" democrats (they've often been in office forever, are pretty conservative, and are typically white and wealthy). progressives are people you've probably seen like AOC, bernie sanders, ilhan omar. big ones people talked about in this most recent election were beto o'rourke (lost governor of texas), john fetterman (won senate race in pennsylvania against TV personality and clown Dr. Oz lmfao), stacey abrams (lost governor of georgia to bryan kemp for the second time), and a lot more. progressives generally (although not always) advocate for things like a $15 federal minimum wage, some form of healthcare reform, liberal immigration policies, and stricter environmental regulations. unfortunately, the US government makes it pretty impossible to achieve meaningful change for people - so average people have to fight tooth and nail for relatively small wins, like one person being released from prison or one person getting the surgery they need to survive. it's similar for progressives in federal govt, and imo they usually follow a pattern of getting elected and then growing more conservative and/or being unable to help anyone they (claim to) want to. they're also pretty much always extremely pro israel, support sanctions on socialist countries, spread propaganda about "enemy" countries, and are sometimes even more warmongering than the republicans. this is probably the most important factor in why i gave up any hope in voting for progressives at a federal level. i do think it's easier to create meaningful change at a state and local level and i think voting is a lot more impactful there, although i am literally never gonna be someone who lectures anyone about voting lmao.

so tldr not really 😑🚫❌🔥🇺🇸🔥❌🚫😑

[bllsbailey]

Mike Johnson Demands Firing of Ukraine's Ambassador After Zelensky's Campaign Swing Through Pennsylvania

Fat Ugly Democrat Party Woman and the Weasel Con Man.

House Speaker Mike Johnson demanded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

recall Ukraine's US ambassador in a sharply worded letter made public Wednesday.

I demand that you immediately fire Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.  As you have said, Ukrainians have tried to avoid being “captured by American domestic politics,” and “influencing the choices of the American people” ahead of the November election. Clearly that objective was abandoned this week when Ambassador Markarova organized an event in which you toured an American manufacturing site.  The facility was in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because – on purpose – no Republicans were invited. The tour was clearly a partisan campaign event designed to help Democrats and is clearly election interference. This shortsighted and intentionally political move has caused Republicans to lose trust in Ambassador Markarova’s ability to fairly and effectively serve as a diplomat in this country. She should be removed from her post immediately.    Additionally, as I have clearly stated in the past, all foreign nations should avoid opining on or interfering in American domestic politics. Support for ending Russia’s war against Ukraine continues to be bipartisan, but our relationship is unnecessarily tested and needlessly tarnished when the candidates at the top of the Republican presidential ticket are targeted in the media by officials in your government. These incidents cannot be repeated. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and I trust you will take immediate action. 

The incident Speaker Johnson refers to was a visit to a US munitions factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The factory makes 155mm artillery ammunition used by the Ukrainian Army. Zelensky took the occasion not only to thank the workers for their diligence and acknowledge the vital work they are doing but to criticize statements made by Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance on how to end the war in Ukraine (the criticism was on point but the thought process behind the statement was definitely suboptimal). Adding to the aura that Zelensky was campaigning for Kamala Harris on American soil were the fact that:

Pennsylvania is a critical state for Trump and a must-win state for Harris, where she appears to be flailing about; see Game On: Big Warning Signs for Kamala HQ in Pennsylvania After Release of New Susquehanna Poll.

Zelensky was hosted by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, the runner-up in the beauty contest to be Kamala's running mate.

Democrat Senator Bob Casey and Representative Matt Cartwright were invited, but no Pennsylvania Republicans were on the list. In fairness, Scranton is in Cartwright's district, but the Democrats-only vibe created was troubling.

The media tried to run interference for the visit with a healthy helping of "bothsidesism." For instance, "Zelensky’s visit to Pennsylvania mirrors a trip to Utah in July, where he met with Republican Gov. Spencer Cox and signed a memorandum of understanding with state leaders. In both cases, state leaders expressed support for Ukraine in its battle against Russia."

Not to belabor the obvious, but Utah is not a swing state, the governor is not a Trump surrogate, and that visit was not 40 days out from a presidential election.

The immediate effect of the kerfuffle is that neither former President Trump nor Speaker Johnson plans to meet with Zelensky while he's in the US (Republicans follow Trump’s lead of icing out Zelensky | CNN Politics). For good measure, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman, Kentucky Republican James Comer, has opened an investigation into the whole affair; see Republicans Would Kindly Like Some Answers About the Legality of Zelensky's Visit to PA – RedState.

“In 2019, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeached President Donald J. Trump for abuse of power under the theory that he attempted to use a foreign leader—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—to benefit his 2020 presidential campaign, despite a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump. The Biden-Harris Administration recently flew the same foreign leader—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—on an American-taxpayer-funded flight to Pennsylvania, a battleground state in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, which has been described as the ‘trickiest battleground for Vice President Kamala Harris to win.’  The Committee seeks to determine whether the Biden-Harris Administration attempted to use a foreign leader to benefit Vice President Harris’s presidential campaign and, if so, necessarily committed an abuse of power,” wrote Chairman Comer.

I'm not a huge Comer fan, but this is definitely a sauce-for-the-goose-is-sauce-for-the-gander moment; see What the Biden-Harris Administration Just Did With Ukraine's Zelensky Should Be Impeachable – RedState. If Trump could be impeached for attempting to protect Ukrainian prosecutors investigating Biden Crime Family corruption in Ukraine, Harris should get the same treatment for using a foreign nation to meddle in a US election.

Legendary French Diplomat Charles Talleyrand is supposed to have said, "C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute." It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.

That is certainly the case here.

For the last two years, a large part of the English-speaking (though not necessarily American) pro-Ukrainian crowd on social media has struggled to change support for Ukraine with fairly deep bipartisan support in Congress and with the public into a partisan political issue with the Democrats staged as the supporters of Ukraine. So much so that when this war winds down, I plan on blocking 99.9% of the sources I use for Ukraine news on "X," formerly Twitter. It is hard to conceive of a more stupid and pig-headed position unless it is the alleged conservatives who keep claiming Russia's invasion was justified, a point of view that is totally at odds with reality and implausible to anyone not six sigmas to the left of the center of an IQ Bell Curve. Somehow, Zelensky either allowed himself to be roped into a "Great Idea," or he's internalized the leftist talking point Ukraine's independence is a Democrat issue.

As the war enters a critical phase next year with Trump almost certainly back in the White House, Zelensky has effectively burned critical bridges he will need at the negotiating table and on the battlefield. 

Speaker Johnson is correct. The Ukrainian ambassador either knowingly or unknowingly embroiled her president and her nation's struggle for self-determination in a US presidential campaign on the side of the probable loser. Zelensky should take the "L," fire his ambassador, apologize, and get Hillary Clinton to make him a huge red button labeled "RESET."

[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.

[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.

[dallasareaopinion]

No Labels, exactly what are they and for me this is more of the same nonsense that isn’t going to produce anything and is a big waste of time,,,,but don’t you want new parties you ask?

Yes I do want new parties, but from the little bit I have read they really aren’t a new party even though they are trying to get on ballots in states as if they are a political party. You cannot make any headway or productive change if you just try to upset the apple cart in one election. As of this morning they are on the ballot in 14 states and do not have a ticket yet. Not having named candidates right now though isn’t an issue. Shoot the Dems and Reps haven’t had one primary vote yet so No Labels does not need to be in a hurry.

And what really irks me about all the No Labels talk is that this is a broken record. Does anyone remember American Elect? And yes the exact same Democrats who were against them are against No Labels because they are afraid that they will siphon votes from the Democratic Candidate which is presumable Joe Biden, but not guaranteed yet. Essentially the Democrats fear any moderate candidate outside of them is not good for them. Yet if they had done what is right for the working and middle class all along these attempts at independent candidates would gain no head way. So first they should not be allowed to prevent No Labels from being on the ballot anywhere because second their failure here is their own fault. And going back to first point, it is un-American to deny people the right to be on a ballot unless they try to shoot themselves onto it.

And going back to American Elect moment in time I wrote a post on this blog on December 30, 2011 and a follow up on January 01, 2012. You can go back and check me, however basically I was against the run back then for the same reasons now. You cannot make significant change in the body politic of our country just by electing an independent candidate to the Presidency. Why, well you need a political party in Congress to help support your legislative agenda. Much as the two major parties are failing with new initiatives right now, to get legislation passed you need to have someone bring a bill to the floor of the House and Senate.  Here is one paragraph from the previous post”             Now back to the comments about the America Elect process. I am not going to get into the splitting of the vote, CNN and others are pretty ramped up about that. And yes it could be a concern, but lets take a look at the America Elect group actually winning. The problem is that they have no other support. Legislation gets passed when you have support in Congress and most of the time that comes from your own party. American Elect is not trying to create a third party so they run into a huge wall when dealing with Congress if they win the Presidency.  This would create a gigantic stalemate or even something more interesting where Republicans and Democrats agree on some issues and pass what they want and override Presidential vetos left and right (pun intended). So the goal of America Elect is thwarted by the very group they are trying to by pass to run this country. Basically we get more of the current situation which is partisan arguing and no real and new policy development. And if you are a libertarian you might be able to claim victory this way if the government cannot do anything for four years.

I just copied and pasted and even left the misspelled word from the original post. Here we are almost 12 years later and no one has figured out that to overcome the current morass in Congress you need to bring in full scale change. Well maybe some people have figured that out, but no one is doing anything about it. Go back to my blurb about this blog” an editor is worth their weight in gold, too bad I have neither.” If I had the gold I would at least try to pull something together because I obviously need the editor to make sense of my thoughts to get people to make changes, yet again almost 12 years ago I saw the same attempt as No Labels, explained why it would fail if they won and yet here we go again with no change that would be successful. Anyone wonder why I walk the thin line of madness?

Also if you do go back and read the full two parts of the post it also contains a small history of third parties in the United States. And if you are reading this on Tumblr or Wordpress, you will have to go to blogger or blogspot or whatever to read the original. I basically do the same blog on three platforms, but did not start the other two until sometime later.

No Labels is a waste of time and money, no matter how sincere they may be. If we want real change, we need to do real work. Where is the gold?

No cheers, this is maddening.

[itsnothingbutluck]

He’s not even 34 and he’s already professor of economics at Stanford University in California. In 2018 he was awarded the prize for best young French economist.

A former student of Professor Thomas Piketty – who caused a stir when he published “Capital in the 21st Century” in 2013 – Zucman made his own claim to fame in 2015 with his book “The Hidden Wealth of Nations,” where he revealed that more than 7.6 trillion dollars (8% of global GDP) was squirreled away in tax havens. 

In his new book, “The Triumph of Injustice,” which he co-wrote with Emmanuel Saez (published in Greek by Polis), he has focused on wider tax justice and particularly on the idea of a wealth tax, which was the central tenet in Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s campaigns for the Democratic nominations. 

In this interview, which we conducted via Skype, he speaks about the democratic deficit in the USA, the hypocrisy of billionaires and the hope of the European Union.   

Since you wrote your latest book, we have seen Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who endorsed your bold tax proposals, exit the race for the Democratic nomination. Was it really a triumph of injustice? Do you feel a bit let down? 

No. I think that the ideas described in the book that were also part of the programs of Warren and Sanders are very popular in the electorate in the US. Wealth tax, end of tax competition, corporate tax. Opinion polls showed that the big majority of Democrats – 70% – supported it. It was also supported by the majority of Republican and independent voters. In the US and in Europe, when you ask if rich people and multinational corporations pay enough taxes, the majority replies “no.” There’s strong demand for tax justice and economic justice.

So why did they lose the nomination? Do you think that billionaires are creating a media landscape that is against people who advocate high taxes? 

The bigger problem is that the participation of low income people in the electoral process is very low. The majority of low income, young minorities just don’t vote. 

Do you feel a bit like you’re tilting at windmills or do you still believe that a change in economic and tax policy is feasible? 

I am pretty sure it will be a change because if you take the history of taxation it is full of U-turns. In the book we show that in the US before 1930 income tax was unconstitutional, then the constitution was changed and it was increased up to 90% in the post-war years. Then it was reduced to 28% by [Ronald] Reagan. Now that we have Covid-19 we have seen that the pandemic accelerates change. Change might be possible even with a Biden administration. [Joe] Biden was seen as moderate but it might be possible to be radical given the post-Covid context. I remain optimistic that change could happen.

In the book you remind us that there was a quarrel in one of the last 2016 debates between Trump and Clinton and Trump said he didn’t pay taxes because he’s “smart.” Have you thought that this behavior hit a nerve because many in the US see it as an anti-establishment stance?

Yes, politically, perhaps it was a smart line, playing into the bias feeling and also more fundamentally it is part of the ideology: low tax, small government, Tea Party, extreme version of the neo-liberal ideology. That if you can avoid tax, you are actually contributing to the greater good of society by making yourself wealthier. That ideology is quite pervasive in the US and globally since the 1980s. But of course it has a paradox, because if everybody cheats on taxes and they maximize their own bottom line, there will be no society to take collective action. There’s this paradox that people refuse to see. What’s the reason to run for the higher office when at the same time you say that collective action is worthless and that there are only individuals seeking to maximize their own profits? It doesn’t make sense. 

And also, it doesn’t make sense that most rich people now play the anti-establishment card. They are all against the establishment. Is this a kind of farce? Elon Musk is against the establishment. Trump is against the establishment. Most billionaires are against the establishment. 

The reason they are billionaires is because they benefited from the low taxation and the legal system, properties rights protection and protection of monopolies. It is so hypocritical for them to say they are anti – especially when they derive from the establishment. 

On the other hand, there is a philosophical approach that says that if you rob individuals of their billions you will not have powerful actors to counter state power. You will then have states, very powerful states, that would become authoritative. 

When you have extreme concentration of wealth then you have instances of state capture. A good illustration of that is the US in the last few years. If you look at the Trump presidency, the one big legislative achievement was the tax law that was passed in December 2017. It’s a reform that reduces taxes for the big donors, dramatically reduces income tax rate, to 21%, and reduces estate tax for the wealthy. And all this came after rising inequality in the last 40 years. Can you see this differently than in that the very wealthy are controlling in a sense the US government? So, a more balanced distribution of wealth makes it less likely that you’ll see phenomena like the very wealthy capturing the government.

Five years ago, Greece almost left the eurozone. What did you think then and what do you think now? 

Then and now I think the EU has not addressed the fundamental problems that exist – that is that we have a monetary union without common fiscal policies. We have one currency and 27 different interest rates. We have a deficit of democracy in the EU and in the eurozone. 

But everybody in the EU is elected in different elections – from the leaders to the members of European Parliament.

To be a community is to pull resources together and the way to do that is by taxation. At the heart of this it should be a vote by elected representatives. There is a fundamental lack of democracy now and I think we should be more ambitious in the political community we want to create. That means a common budget and common taxes and people elected to debate and vote about these common taxes. We can’t only rely on the European Central Bank. 

There was a first step with the announcement of an EU plan to borrow 750 billion euros to tackle the economic recovery following the coronavirus pandemic. Do you think it is really a first step? 

I think it is a first step that goes in the right direction.

You have said that you were shocked when Jean-Marie Le Pen qualified for the second round of voting in the presidential elections of 2002. Fifteen years later, were you also shocked to see his daughter, Marine, secure nearly 34% in the second round of voting in 2017? Was it a bigger shock? And what about 2022? Do you fear we might see a Le Pen presidency?

Yes, I am very concerned about the rise of the far right in France, Germany, the US and Spain. There’s a global trend. What I am trying to do with my work is to say, “Yes, this is the problem and we can get constructive and better solutions than protectionism and nativism and leaving the euro, leaving the EU.” So, it’s on us, intellectuals, economists to explain, to demonstrate it is possible to reconcile globalization and economic justice and that people like Le Pen approach the case fundamentally wrong.

Are you still optimistic that the EU will remain united in 10 years’ time, in 2030? 

I am by nature optimistic, but it is urgent that we democratize the EU and make a proper European Community with a budget, taxation and common debt. The EU must get to the next stage in terms of integration and democracy.