#Assembly Housing Committee

[brianrope]

Relating to the Honourable Tom Uren AC

Forty years ago this month, a major and challenging event happened in my life. It involved the Honourable Tom Uren AC. This is the story of my relationship with Uren during 18 months of my working life. Legend, charismatic hero, champion. These are just some of the words used in the media to describe The Honourable Tom Uren AC after he died on 26 January 2015. Born on 28 May 1921 in the then…

[hamadisthings]

BAD CALIFORNIAN INTERNET BILLS

While it is good that KOSA is now dead in the House (for now) I would like to ask for people's attention on AB1949 and SB976, which could push for Age verification by showing your ID.

There was a third bill named AB3080 that had similar goals, but luckily it received revisions so it is no longer a threat or require ID verification to access websites. So it would be possible to get AB1949 and SB976 to be revised so they aren't dangerous anymore.

You can read the text for AB1949 right here

AB1949 doesn't explicitly ask for ID verification anymore, as it used to, due to a revision, but there is a provision stating if they deem a website "willfully disregards" the age of the user they will be deemed to have actual knowledge of the user's age.

This broad part could be left to abuse, which is why it needs to be revised before passing, in order to confirm ID verification is not required. FIND YOUR REPS HERE!

For AB1949, you can find your Senate representative with the link above as I said, and check to see if they're a member of the CA Senate Appropriations Committee. Then call them to tell them you oppose this bill. Try to add reasons you think this bill would negatively affect California financially because that's what this committee focuses on.

As for SB976, which you can read here

Its goal is to "keep kids off social medias and addictive feeds" But the concerning part is that "it would make it unlawful for the operator of an addictive internet-based service or application, as defined, to provide an addictive feed to a user, unless the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is a minor; commencing January 1, 2027, has reasonably determined that the user is not a minor; or has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to the user who is a minor."

How are you supposed to know that you have "verifiable parental consent" without ID and age verification of both parents and child?Even then, holding the ID of a minor feels pretty illegal given how sensitive how an info this is, in case of a data breach (which will happen) this would endanger kids even more, and no one in general want to give their ID to access a website or an app.

The bill would also make it unlawful for a website or app to send notifications to a minor according to a certain timeframe.

For SB976, find your Assembly representative using the link below and check to see if they're a member of the CA Assembly Appropriations Committee. Then call them to tell them you oppose this bill. https://apro.assembly.ca.gov/members

You can tell them how this is terrible for privacy, and the safety of children, and that it would be terrible for the economy of California, as they seem to focus on it. You can try sending faxes for either bills, but calling IS MUCH MORE efficient. https://faxzero.com/

Here is the time schedule, bills must be taken care before the end of August so it is a matter of time crunch:

You may use the following scripts for the respective bills, you can try to trim it if you deem it too long!

Might be worth a shot to contact Gavin Newsom (Californian governor) here to voice your concerns for these bills

[txttletale]

how do ml's reconcile with lenin going for a bigbrainhaver hierarchy which just so happened to place him at the tippy top? most of the things he's quoted for writing make a kind of sense in that longwinded academic philosopher way, but, like, russia went from having a revolution against monarchy to having a monarchy, essentially, and what folks do tends to align with their desires, yeah? wouldn't that make everything he said, idk, suspicious?

we reconcile with this because none of this is even remotely true. lenin did not 'happen to be placed at the tippy top' but was in fact elected by the soviets, who worked in a very simple electoral system by which workers and peasants would elect representatives to their local soviet, who as well as administering local services would also elect members to higher bodies. the quote unquote bigbrainhaver hierarchy system in question was as follows:

The sovereign body is in every case the Congress of Soviets. Each county sends its delegates. These are elected indirectly by the town and county Soviets which vote in proportion to population, following the ratio observed throughout, by which the voters in the town have five times the voting strength of the inhabitants of the villages, an advantage which may, as we saw, be in reality three to one. The Congress meets, as a rule, once a year, for about ten days. It is not, in the real sense of the word, the legislative body. It debates policy broadly, and passes resolutions which lay down the general principles to be followed in legislation. The atmosphere of its sittings is that of a great public demonstration. The Union Congress, for example, which has some fifteen hundred members, meets in the Moscow Opera House. The stage is occupied by the leaders and the heads of the administration, and speeches are apt to be big oratorical efforts. The real legislative body is the so-called Central Executive Committee (known as the C. I. K. and pronounced "tseek") . It meets more frequently than the Congress to which it is responsible-in the case of the Union, at least three times in the year-passes the Budget, receives the reports of the Commissars (ministers), and discusses international policy. It, in its turn, elects two standing bodies: (1) The Presidium of twenty-one members, which has the right to legislate in the intervals between the sittings of the superior assemblies, and also transacts some administrative work. (2) The Council of Peoples' Commissars. These correspond roughly to the Ministers or Secretaries of State in democratic countries and are the chiefs of the administration. Meeting as a Council, they have larger powers than any Cabinet, for they may pass emergency legislation and issue decrees which have all the force of legislation. Save in cases of urgency, however, their decrees and drafts of legislation must be ratified by the Executive Committee (C.I.K.). In another respect they differ from the European conception of a Minister. Each Commissar is in reality the chairman of a small board of colleagues, who are his advisers. These advisory boards, or collegia, meet very frequently (it may even be daily) to discuss current business, and any member of a board has the right to appeal to the whole Council of Commissars against a decision of the Commissar.

—H.N. Brailsford, How The Soviets Work (1927)

you might notice that the congresses of soviets were not directly elected -- this is because they were elected by local soviets, who were directly elected, in a process that many people have given first hand accounts of:

I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship are no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organisation was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet. As far as the elections in the villages were concerned, these took place at open village meetings, all peasants of voting age, other than those who employed labour, having the right to vote and to stand for election. As in the towns, any organisation or individual could put forward candidates, anyone could ask the candidate questions, and anybody could support or oppose the candidature. It is usual for the Communist Party to put forward a candidate, trade unions and other organisations can also do so, and there is nothing to prevent the Party’s candidate from not being elected, if he has not sufficient prestige among the voters. In the towns the “ electoral district ” has hitherto consisted of a factory, or a group of small factories sufficient to form a constituency. But there was one section of the town population which has always had to vote geographically, since they did not work together in one organisation. This was the housewives. As a result, the housewives met separately in each district, had their own constituencies, and elected their own representatives to the Soviet. Here, too, vital interest has always been shown in the personality of every candidate. Why should this woman be elected ? What right had she to represent her fellow housewives on the local Soviet ? In the district next to my own at the last election the housewife who was elected was well known as an organiser of a communal dining-room in the district. This was the kind of person that the housewives wanted to represent them on the Soviet. Another candidate, a Communist, proposed by the local organisation of the Party, was turned down in her favour.

[...]

The election of delegates to the local Soviet is not the only function of voters in the Soviet Union. It is not a question here of various parties presenting candidates to the electorate, each with his own policy to offer. The Soviet electorate has to select a personality from its midst to represent it, and instruct this person in the policy which is to be followed when elected. At a Soviet election meeting, therefore, as much or more time may be spent on discussion of the instructions to the delegate as is spent on discussing the personality of the candidates. At the last election to the Soviets, in which I personally participated, we must have spent three or four times as much time on the working out of instructions as we did on the selection of our candidate. About three weeks before the election was to take place the trade union secretary in every department of our organisation was told by the committee that it was time to start to prepare our instructions to the delegate. Every worker was asked to make suggestions concerning policy which he felt should be brought to the notice of the new personnel of the Moscow Soviet. As a result, about forty proposals concerning the general government of Moscow were handed in from a group of about twenty people. We then held a meeting in our department at which we discussed the proposals, and adopted some and rejected others. We then handed our list of pro¬ posals to a commission, appointed by the trade union committee, and representing all the workers in our organisation. This Commission co-ordinated the pro¬ posals received, placed them in order according to the various departments of the Soviet, and this co-ordinated list was read at the election meeting itself, again discussed, and adopted in its final form.

—Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy (1937)

Between the elections of 1931 and 1934, no less than 18 per cent of the city deputies and 37 per cent of village deputies were recalled, of whom only a relatively small number — 4 per cent of the total — were charged with serious abuse of power. The chief reasons for recall were inactivity — 37 per cent — and inefficiency — 21 per cent. If these figures indicate certain lacks in the quality of elected officials, they show considerable activity of the people in improving government. The electorate of the Peasants' Gazette, for example, consisted of some 1,500 employees, entitled to elect one deputy to the Moscow city soviet and two to the ward soviet. For more than a month before the election every department of the newspaper held meetings discussing both candidates and instructions. Forty-three suggested candidates and some 1,400 proposals for the work of the incoming government resulted from these meetings, which also elected committees to boil down and classify the instructions. These committees issued a special four-page newspaper for the 1,500 voters; it contained brief biographies of the forty-three candidates, an analysis of their capacities by the Communist Party organization of the Peasants' Gazette, and the "nakaz," or list of "people's instructions," classified by subject and the branch of government which they concerned. At the final election meeting of the Peasants* Gazette there was literally more than 100 per cent attendance, since some of the staff who for reasons of absence or illness had not been listed as prospective voters returned from sanatoria or from distant assignments to vote. The instructions issued by the electorate in this manner — 1,400 from the Peasants' Gazette and tens of thousands from Moscow citizens — became the first business of the incoming government.

—Anna Louise Strong, The New Soviet Constitution (1937)

does this mean that the soviet project was some utopian perfect system? no. there were flaws in the system like any other. it disenfranchised the rural peasantry (although not, i would like to add, to any extent greater or even equivalent to the extent to which the US electoral system disenfranchises the urban working class) -- the various tiers of indirect selection created a divide between the average worker and the highest tier of the executive -- and various elements of this fledgling system would calcify and bureaucratise over time in ways that obstructed worker's democracy. but saying that it was 'a monarchy' is founded in absolutely nothing except the most hysterical anticommunist propaganda and tedious orwellian liberal truisms.

even brailsford, in an account overall critical of the soviet system, had to admit:

Speaking broadly, the various organs of the system, from the Council of Commissars of the Union down to the sub-committees of a town Soviet, are handling the same problems. Whether one sits in the Kremlin at a meeting of the most august body of the whole Union, the "C.I.K.," or round a table in Vladimir with the working men who constitute its County Executive Committee, one hears exactly the same problems discussed. How, be-fore June arrives, shall we manage to reduce prices by ten percent? What growth can we show in the number of our spindles, or factories, and in the number of workers employed? When and how shall we make our final assault on the last relics of illiteracy? Or when shall we have room in our schools, even in the remotest village, for every child? Was it by good luck or good guidance that the number of typhus cases has dropped in a year by half? And, finally, how can we hasten the raising of clover seed, so that the peasants who, at last, thanks to our propaganda, are clamoring for it, may not be disappointed?

—H.N. Brailsford, How The Soviets Work (1927)

genuinely, i think you should take a moment and think about where you learned about the soviet union. have you read any serious historical work on the topic, even from non-communist or anti-communist sources? because even imperialist propagandists have to make a pretence at engaging with actual facts on the ground, something which you haven't done at all -- and yet you speak with astounding confidence. i recommend you read some serious books instead of animal farm and reflect on why you believe the things you believe and how you know the things you think you know.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak are urging MPs across party lines to support legislation to ensure First Nations have clean drinking water in their communities. The government has put forward a bill that seeks to do just that, and also seeks to protect source-water on First Nations territories. Hajdu has called it the first piece of truly co-developed legislation between Canada and First Nations — even though some First Nations disagree with that framing. The bill has been before a House of Commons committee for months, where MPs have heard chiefs and experts raise concerns that the legislation does not go far enough to protect their rights. They also question how robust it will be in ensuring their communities receive adequate funding to maintain and operate water treatment plants.

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[hallowpen]

June's 2024 Pride Month is fast approaching in Thailand, so I thought now would be the perfect time to explain the Thai legislative process and what the future of the Marriage Equality Bill looks like:

How Does A Bill Become Law in Thailand? I'm going to explain it as simple as possible. A bill is always first introduced into the National Assembly. The National Assembly is broken down into two houses: you have the lower house (House of Representatives) and the upper house (Senate). First, the bill goes through consideration in the lower house and there's three separate readings. Once it gets approved on its third reading, it's then sent to the upper house where it has to go through the same process. Again, it goes through three separate readings. Then if it's approved on its third reading, the PM (Prime Minister) sends it to the King for royal approval. If the King signs the bill, it'll become law once it is published in the Royal Gazette.

At What Point in the Process is the Marriage Equality Bill? In April, the Senate voted "Yes" to accept the bill for consideration. A committee will be formed to consider the bill in its second reading--which will not happen until July. So, really we're just waiting because the current senatorial term ends early this month... Unfortunately, given the timeframe of how the process works, the bill was never going to be realistically passed by Pride 2024. It is a little bit disappointing, but there's still lots to celebrate. Thailand is seeking to host the World Pride Events in Bangkok by 2028...So there is a lot to look forward to, regardless. (Best case scenario*, marriage equality will be legal by November 🤞🏾🤞🏾🤞🏾)

What Will Happen during the Second Reading in the Senate? The second reading is where things get a little more complicated. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome for the bill to be passed as quickly as possible. Once the committee is appointed, they'll be going through the bill section by section. Any amendments that were proposed from the lower house, which this go around is mostly just about equal representation in the language of the bill, will be considered (Consideration cannot exceed 30 days). The hope is that all 27 members of the committee will vote to agree with the amendments and then the bill will be revised as such. However, at this stage, if the committee cannot come to a full agreement, then the amendments must be debated. During debate, if the majority approve the amendments, the text is revised and the bill moves on to the third reading. If the bill is withheld, meaning the Senate doesn't agree to any of the amendments, it goes back to the lower house for reconsideration.

What Happens if the Bill is Presented for Reconsideration in the Lower House? The lower house can agree and approve the bill as is. But if the lower house does not agree with the Senate's decision or if the Senate has proposed amendments that the lower house does not agree with, then the two houses must form a joint committee that will work to resubmit an agreed upon version of the bill. From there, my knowledge is pretty limited, but I know due to the numbers from the houses initial votes, the bill would eventually be approved by a combination of votes from both houses.

What Happens during the Third Reading in the Senate? During the third reading of the bill, the Senate must decide whether to enact the bill as law or not. They're not allowed to change anything on the bill and they cannot debate any of the amendments. It's just: here's the bill, it's being presented as it's been approved by the second reading, should it be passed as law or not? One more than the majority of the vote is needed in the upper house in order for the bill to be approved.

What Happens if the Senate Votes "No" on the Bill? The bill can be reintroduced into the lower house after 180 days. If the lower house votes to approve the bill that was presented in the third reading of the upper house (which they will), it basically bypasses the Senate's decision to not approve the bill. From there it'll go directly from the lower house to the PM... who will present it to the King for royal approval. Like I've been saying: the bill is eventually going to become law at some point. It's just a matter of when. Because if the Senate decides to make things difficult, then it would just take longer for the bill to pass. Since it's going to pass eventually, we want everything to go as smoothly as possible without any hiccups.

What is the Likelihood of the Senate Voting "Yes"? It's hard to give a definitive answer. The expectation is that, since they know the bill is going to eventually become law anyway, they're just going to do the decent thing and approve it so that they don't have to prolong things any further... because it's taken long enough at this point. The problem is that the upper house is more notoriously known as the conservative house of the National Assembly. And if you understand Thai and were paying attention to the discussions that were going on in their first reading, you can kind of see why that is. Unfortunately, there is a chance that they're going to want to make things more difficult... but I'm hopeful that they won't.

**UPDATE**: As of 18/06/24 the Senate has voted YES to approve the Marriage Equality Bill... which means it should be enacted into law by OCTOBER!!!

What Happens if the Senate Votes "Yes"? Once the National Assembly approves the bill, it goes to the King for approval. After the King receives the bill from the PM, he would have a period of twenty days from when he received it to sign it into law. Once it is signed, it is arranged for publication in the gazette. After 120 days from its publication, it is considered officially legal in Thailand.

**UPDATE**: The Royal Gazette has announced that the King has signed and passed the Marriage Equality Law which has been enacted as of 24/09/2024... the law will come into effect after 120 days!

Can the King Veto the Bill? He can...BUT the King's never used his veto once the National Assembly has approved a bill. In the extremely rare case that he does, the lower house would reintroduce the bill and the National Assembly would vote to bypass the King's veto anyway. The bill can then be sent directly to the gazette, with or without the King's signature, to be published into law. 

*The best case scenario, overall, is that 1) the Senate votes to approve any and all amendments during the second reading and 2) in the third reading they vote to approve the bill in its amended form. Then the PM will present that bill to the King, it'll be signed, and then published in the gazette. And, that's it. Then you have marriage equality in Thailand. Officially!!!   

❤️🧡💛💚💙💜

Marriage equality has been in talks for a while in Thailand, and a lot of us were frustrated when it didn't get passed the first few times around. Now that we know that it's going to be legal, I'm hopeful about what this could mean in the future: Gender recognition... full and equal protection under the law... I was 11 when I moved to the United States to live with my dad (I won't get into the reasons why, they're very personal) and ~11 years later, when marriage equality passed I could not express the amount of joy that had overcome me...and I was only 21 at the time, with no intention of being married in the near future. Yet, for some reason, I felt as though I could not be fully excited because things were so different back home. What I could have here, I could not have if I ever decided to move back to Thailand. That's not to say that Thailand is not very culturally accepting of the LGBTQIA+ community, because they are (for the most part), it's just that the laws have failed to keep up. Given my personal situation, which I don't typically feel comfortable sharing with people I don't really know, something as simple as being able to change my gender indicator on my Thai I.D. and my passport...those are things that can now be dreamt into reality. Whereas before, it was something that you couldn't even fathom being a discussion had marriage equality not been passed. It's just a really big deal and I'm happy to see that it's finally happening! ❤️

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Nobody

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 2, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 03, 2024

Today, Aaron C. Davis and Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post reported that there is reason to believe that when Trump’s 2016 campaign was running low on funds, Trump accepted a $10 million injection of cash from Egypt’s authoritarian leader Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. It is against the law to accept direct or indirect financial support from foreign nationals or foreign governments for a political campaign in the United States.

In early 2017, CIA officials told Justice Department officials that a confidential informant had told them of such a cash exchange, and those officials handed the matter off to Robert Mueller, the special counsel who was already looking at the links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives. FBI agents noted that on September 16, Trump had met with Sisi when the Egyptian leader was at the U.N. General Assembly in New York City. 

After the meeting, Trump broke with U.S. policy to praise Sisi, calling him a “fantastic guy.” 

Trump’s campaign had been dogged with a lack of funds, and his advisers had begged him to put some of his own money into it. He refused until October 28, when he loaned the campaign $10 million.

An FBI investigation took years to get records, but Davis and Leonnig reported that in 2019 the FBI learned of a key withdrawal from an Egypt bank. In January 2017, five days before Trump took office, an organization linked to Egypt’s intelligence service asked a manager at a branch of the state-run National Bank of Egypt to “kindly withdraw” $9,998,000 in U.S. currency. The bundles of $100 bills filled two bags and weighed more than 200 pounds. 

Once in office, Trump embraced Sisi and, in a reversal of U.S. policy, invited him to be one of his first guests at the White House. “I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President al-Sissi,” Trump said. 

Mueller had gotten that far in pursuit of the connection between Trump and Sisi when he was winding down his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He handed the Egypt investigation off to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D C., where it appears then–attorney general William Barr killed it. 

Today, Brian Schwartz of CNBC reported that Elon Musk and other tech executives are putting their money behind a social media ad campaign for Trump and Vance, and are creating targeted ads in swing states by collecting information about voters under false pretenses. According to Schwartz, their America PAC, or political action committee, says it helps viewers register to vote. And, indeed, the ads direct would-be voters in nonswing states to voter registration sites.

But people responding to the ad in swing states are not sent to registration sites. Instead, they are presented with “a highly detailed personal information form [and] prompted to enter their address, cellphone number and age,” handing over “priceless personal data to a political operation” that can then create ads aimed at that person’s demographic and target them personally in door-to-door campaigns. After getting the information, the site simply says, “Thank you,” without directing the viewer toward a registration site.

Forbes estimates Musk’s wealth at more than $235 billion. 

In June the Trump Organization announced a $500 million deal with Saudi real estate developer Dar Global to build a Trump International hotel in Oman. 

In January 2011, when he was director of the FBI, Robert Mueller gave a speech to the Citizens Crime Commission of New York. He explained that globalization and modern technology had changed the nature of organized crime. Rather than being regional networks with a clear structure, he said, organized crime had become international, fluid, and sophisticated and had multibillion-dollar stakes. Its operators were cross-pollinating across countries, religions, and political affiliations, sharing only their greed. They did not care about ideology; they cared about money. They would do anything for a price.

These criminals “may be former members of nation-state governments, security services, or the military,” he said. “They are capitalists and entrepreneurs. But they are also master criminals who move easily between the licit and illicit worlds. And in some cases, these organizations are as forward-leaning as Fortune 500 companies.”

In order to corner international markets, Mueller explained, these criminal enterprises "may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called 'iron triangles' of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat."

In a new book called Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World, journalist Anne Applebaum carries that story forward into the present, examining how today’s autocrats work together to undermine democracy. She says that “the language of the democratic world, meaning rights, laws, rule of law, justice, accountability, [and] transparency��[is]  harmful to them,” especially as those are the words that their internal opposition uses. “And so they need to undermine the people who use it and, if they can, discredit it.” 

Those people, Applebaum says, “believe they are owed power, they deserve power.” When they lose elections, they “come back in a second term and say, right, this time, I'm not going to make that mistake again, and…then change their electoral system, or…change the constitution, change the judicial system, in order to make sure that they never lose.”

Almost exactly a year ago, on August 1, 2023, a grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted former president Donald J. Trump for conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The charges stemmed from Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. A grand jury is made up of 23 ordinary citizens who weigh evidence of criminal activity and produce an indictment if 12 or more of them vote in favor. 

The grand jury indicted Trump for “conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the government”; “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified”; and “conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.” 

“Each of these conspiracies,” the indictment reads, “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.” “This federal government function…is foundational to the United States’ democratic process, and until 2021, had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years.” 

The case of the United States of America v. Donald J. Trump was randomly assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who was appointed by President Obama in 2014 and confirmed 95–0 in the Senate. Trump pleaded not guilty on August 3, after which his lawyers repeatedly delayed their pretrial motions until, on December 7, Trump asked the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether he was immune from prosecution. Chutkan had to put off her initial trial date of March 4, 2024, and said she would not reschedule until the court decided the question of Trump’s immunity. 

In February the appeals court decided he was not immune. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, which waited until July 1, 2024, to decide that Trump enjoys broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed as part of his official acts. Today the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Chutkan, almost exactly a year after it was first brought.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[todaysdocument]

Report from the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress regarding the purchase of Thomas Jefferson's Library

Record Group 128: Records of Joint Committees of CongressSeries: Committee Papers

In Senate of the United States

October 7. 1814

[number "372" written in pencil]

Mr. Goldsborough, from the joint committee, on

the Library of Congress,

Reported,

That they have received through

Mr. Samuel H. Smith, an offer from Mr. Jefferson

late President of the United States, of the whole

of his library for Congress in such a mode, and

upon such terms as they consider highly advan-

tageous to the nation, and worthy the distinguished

gentleman who tenders it. But the means placed

at the disposal of the committee being very limited

and totally inadequate to the purchase of such

a Library as that now offered, the committee

must have recourse to Congress either to extend

their powers, or to adopt such other plan as

they may think most proper.

Should it be the sense of Congress to

confide this matter to the committee, they

respectfully submit the following resolution:

Resolved by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, that the

joint library committee of the two Houses

of Congress be and they are hereby authorized

and empowered to contract on their part for the purchase of the library of Mr Jefferson late

President of the United States, for the use of

both Houses of Congress.

[dcdreamblog]

So, what exactly is the difference between the JSA and the All-Star Squadron?

Oh that's an easy one: People CHOSE to join the Justice Society. Let me explain.

(This famous image, published coast to coast in December of 1940 shows the JSA's founding lineup upon its first meeting at the team's now iconic Civic City brownstone)

The JSA was formed of what were, at the time, the 8 most prominent mystery men in the United States. Assembled on the advice of FDR after they all collaborated in the wake of Hitler's discovery of the Spear of Destiny and a battle against the 3rd Reich's robotic Murder Machine. Notably BEFORE the USA's official entrance into WWII.

The All-Star Squadron, by contrast was originally a team assembled under the kind of random circumstance most superhero teams form from, creating what constituted its "core membership" which is usually agreed to be Liberty Belle, Amazing Man, Johnny Quick, the original Robotman, Tarantula, Firebrand II, Shining Knight, Commander Steel, Guardian and the original Hawkgirl (They were also frequently joined by the original Hawkman and Atom). They assembled in response to a caper that nearly saw the then entire JSA membership fall under Hitler's sway.

This is not what the Squadron became.

The Wartime Deputization and Vigilante Service Act more commonly known as "Article X" was officially passed in the very early days of 1942. It functionally drafted every Mystery Man active within the United States, making them answerable to the United States Government through the All-Star Squadron.

(This iconic propaganda poster shows a sizeable chunk of the Squadron's membership circa 1943)

EVERY Mystery Man active at any point between the Act's passing into effect on January 1st, 1942 to VJ Day in 1945 were considered members of the Squadron. The Squadron's core membership and larger functions were carried out from its headquarters at the Trylon and Perisphere in New York City (where I work at its current historical site!).

Most Mystery Men interacted with it either rarely or not at all unless they were called up for their specific skill sets on a specific mission. Many Mystery Men completed their "tour" simply by battering the kinds of spies and saboteurs they would have fought anyway.

It was also split into smaller teams and sub groups, either for some specific function: The Freedom Fighters, Young All-Stars, Squadron of Justice. Or because that team's existence predated the Squadron and was simply subsumed into its roster: The Justice Society, The Seven Soldiers.

The Justice Society famously went into ultimately temporary retirement in response to a witch hunt conducted by House Unamerican Activities Committee in 1949, resurfacing during the early days of the JLA where it continues its activities to this day.

The Squadron was never officially disbanded on paper and Article X remains on the books, having been invoked during a handful of Crises over the past couple decades but its core membership retired either with the war or very soon afterwards. Some have reappeared, some haven't, some have passed on in public and many probably passed on in well earned obscurity.

[gunsandspaceships]

MCU Timeline: Iron Man 2. Part 2

Part 1

2010

May 11, night - Stark Expo opening. Blood toxicity - 19%.

May 12, 9:00 am - 3:30 pm - Tony at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings.

May 13, evening:

Tony is back home and has a video conference in 4 hours. Blood toxicity - 24%. 362 days of Expo left.

Tony (unofficially for now) appoints Pepper as CEO of SI.

May 14 - Tony officially transfers the management of the company to Pepper.

Note: confirmation of 2010 from S.H.I.E.L.D. dossier. The Avengers (deleted scene).

Between May 14 and May 23 - Tony hires Natasha as his new PA.

May 23 - Tony in Monaco. Vanko attacks him on the race track. Blood toxicity - 53%.

BAMF achievement: are you talking about Afghanistan, Tony?

May 24, 7:32 am PT - Tony and Pepper are on the Stark Jet flying home from Monaco. Three hours into the flight, Stern is interviewed by MSNBC.

May 25:

Hammer arranges Vanko's escape and brings him to his place. Ivan begins work on drones, his reactor 2.0 and a suit.

Night - Tony searches for information about Vanko after he was declared dead.

Another f*ck up in dates - the screens say 05.06.10. For that to be true, we'd have to move Tony's birthday and change the Expo countdown.

May 29 (Saturday):

Tony's birthday. Blood toxicity - 89%.

10 pm - party.

Rhodey steals Mark II and fights Tony, then flies away.

May 30:

Morning - after ~10 hours of doing something somewhere Rhodes finally brings Mark II to Edwards Air Force Base.

Tony eats donuts in a donut. Fury and Natasha give him a pep talk and lithium dioxide.

Hammer brings Ivan not his bird and notices that he makes drones, not suits.

USAF calls in Hammer to outfit stolen Mark II with his weapons.

Afternoon - Fury tells Tony that Howard was the founder of S.H.I.E.L.D. and gives him a chest of Howard's things.

Evening - Hammer gets his hands on Mark II and turns it into "War Machine".

Tony looks through his father's notes and receives his message recorded in 1973.

May 31:

Morning - Tony goes to apologize to Pepper and finds the "Key to the Future".

Afternoon - Tony (re)discovers a new element and orders components for a particle accelerator. Meanwhile, he drills more holes into his house, eventually turning it into a piece of Swiss cheese.

June 1:

343 days of Stark Expo left.

Morning - Tony builds his particle accelerator. Coulson is reassigned to New Mexico.

Note: As we've established in Thor's timeline, its events take place in November 2011. Not May/June 2010. I could do some logical gymnastics and stretch it to 2010 (which would already create a mess), but there's no way it could be in May/June.

Afternoon - Tony finishes the particle accelerator and synthesizes the new element at home.

Note: mention of 2010 again.

Evening - Vanko finishes his suit and the drones.

6:20 pm - Vanko calls Tony. Tony heads to New York in the new Mark VI.

40 minutes is most probably an exaggeration, since it is unlikely that Tony could get from Malibu to Flushing in less than 40 minutes. In any case, Tony didn't have time for anything else, especially considering that he needed time to assemble his new suit.

7-9 pm - Hammer and Vanko at the Stark Expo. Tony and Rhodey fight Vanko and defeat him. He blows himself and the Expo up. Tony saves Pepper and 8-year-old Peter Parker. Pepperony's first kiss.

Considering that other things tell us it's been 19 days since Pepper became CEO, Tony's "a week" line is an exaggeration. And Pepper plays along, just like she did with 12% in The Avengers.

I could write a whole post about why it could not be just a week (from Expo opening to the fight) as it's stated in other timelines, but I'll just give you one question to think about: how many days Ivan would need to build all those drones, a new reactor and a suit? Probably not 2.

A week later - Fury gives Tony Natasha's assessment of him and offers him a position as a consultant at S.H.I.E.L.D. Tony accepts.

Mid June - Senator Stern awards Tony and Rhodey with medals.

The Consultant

Second half of 2010:

The World Security Counsel still supports the Avengers Initiative at this point. But they want The Abomination on the team. Coulson and Sitwell send Tony to sabotage the transfer between General Ross and S.H.I.E.L.D. He succeeds, and Blonsky remains in prison.

After that, the WSC loses interest in the Avengers Initiative.

Thor (2011) Timeline

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) Timeline

The Avengers (2012) Timeline

[botgal]

Hello everyone! California's Suspense day has come and gone and we have the results of bills being voted on in the Suspense File! And here's how it went!

Held in Committee (bills do not pass and are dead for the year):

SB 1228 (large online social media platform ID verification) and SB 1444 (requiring social media platforms to have third party software available to allow monitoring of minors online)

Passed:

SB 976 (Protecting Kids From Social Media Addiction Act) and AB 1949 (broadening regulations on collecting personal information of consumers less than 18 years of age)

We've got two down on suspense and still a few to go! (AB 3080 did not go through the Suspense File and passed through to the Senate under a regular hearing)

And SB 976 did have two dissenting votes against 5 yeas, so we know there's definitely some opposition there! So there's still hope of stopping it leaving the Senate!

The last day for each bill to pass through its house of origin is May 24.

So let's keep on calling those reps about SB 976, AB 1949, and AB 3080! Let them hear our voices loud and clear so that they know we mean NO!

Sources:

CA Assembly Suspense File Unofficial Results

CA Senate Suspense File Official Results

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Religious fundamentalism and land disputes boost the destruction of Guarani Kaiowá prayer houses

Indigenous peoples in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul are the main victims of arson

In less than a year, Guarani Kaiowá Indigenous from the retaken land named Kunumi Verá, in the town of Caarapó, in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul, have lost two Oga Pissy – prayer house, in English. “They set the place on fire, and we didn’t get to extinguish the flames," says Simão Kaiowá, the leadership of the Aty Guasu, the Great Assembly of the Guarani Kaiowá people.

The most recent arson was in February 2024. The Oga Pissy was built with the joint effort of twelve people, men and women from the Indigenous community. To this day, the indigenous people have been unable to rebuild the space.

“It was where we prayed, our holy house,” he laments.

Between 2019 and 2023, at least 13 Oga Pissy were destroyed in Indigenous territories and Indigenous lands retaken in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul, according to data from the reports on Violence Against Brazil's Indigenous Peoples organized by the Indigenous Missionary Council (Cimi, in Portuguese).

Although called “prayer houses," these large circular spaces, built with thatch and wood, have other uses besides the spiritual, as explained by researcher and Cimi agent Matias Benno Rempel, who accompanies the Guarani Kaiowá in Mato Grosso do Sul in their struggle for the right to their territory. "It's a fundamental place of social organization, where macro-families always meet to discuss their issues," he says.

In this sense, the Oga Pissy works as a meeting point for the community to hold celebrations and make decisions. “It is also a political committee, a place where people meet to talk about their lives,” explains the researcher.

And precisely the political dimension of the Oga Pissy that encourages agribusiness advocates to use violence. “They identify these spaces as places where we organize; then they go there and burn it,” Rempel explains.

Continue reading.

[mariacallous]

Subverting the federal government was on the minds of state lawmakers Thursday in an hours-long civics lesson from far-right speakers. 

As promised in the 2023 session of the Tennessee General Assembly, the idea of nullification was heard during a summer study session in Nashville. The idea is, basically, for Tennessee to be able to nullify rules from the federal government that it does not like. 

(Read our cover story — “Who’s Got the Power?” — from March to get more details on Tennessee, state sovereignty, and nullification.)

Bills to outline a nullification process in Tennessee go back to at least to 1995. A similar resolution passed in 2021 but it was specific to Covid. It condemned the federal government for mandating vaccinations, restrictions, or requirements. 

Another came last year when state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Kingsport) and state Sen. Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma) filed the ”Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act.” 

In it, the legislature could decide what federal rules they wanted to follow or not. Also, if a voter scraped together 2,000 signatures, they could submit a petition for a nullification to the Speaker of the Tennessee House.  

The bill gained very little traction, if any at all. Neither bill even got enough support to place it on the calendar for a full committee hearing. The idea was slated for a summer study review in 2023. However, that study was interrupted with a special session on school safety, in the wake of the Covenant School shooting that left six dead.  

But Bulsey and Bowling’s idea did finally get that summer study review, even if it was actually in the fall of 2024. True to form on these sessions, Thursday’s hearing yielded no votes or promise of any course of action. It was purely for review. 

The session was not a town hall. State Sen. Richard Briggs (R-Knoxville), the committee chairman, said he knew the idea was “controversial” but did not allow members of the public to speak, or clap, or boo. That right to speak came only for the experts called upon by the legislature. Those selected for this duty Thursday were roundly (and soundly) conservative. 

Jeff Cobble is an attorney and member of the conservative Federalist Society. Joe Wolverton is the inaugural constitutional law scholar for the ultra-conservative John Birch Society. Mark Pulliam is an attorney and writer who, in an August blog post, prayed “… a single juror would vote for President Trump’s acquittal in the circus-like show trial …” in Manhattan. 

The hours of their testimony ranged back to the Declaration of Independence, through the 1781 Articles of Confederation, and to 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was proposed. Lots of it dove deep into definitions of the words of the constitution, like “all,” for example. 

“I’m going to take you like elementary school students through this so this is plain,” said Wolverton in a detailed section of the Constitution to elected lawmakers. “We’re going to go through it phrase by phrase.”  

As for the meat of the separation of powers (and therefore what power Tennessee really does have in nullification), Wolverton presented his ideas wrapped like a click-bait-y YouTube video. “In an hour,” he began, “I can show you how the 14th Amendment is taught wrong.”  

“State — capitalized — has a specific meaning,” he said. “It’s got to do with the sovereign. Nations today are nation states. They are sovereign. 

“I’m suggesting to you something radical, something I did not learn in [constitutional] law. The states are sovereign over the federal government. Now, take that and chew on it. That’s what this bill’s about.” 

Some spice in the meeting came late as state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D-Nashville) began asking questions of the panel. He asked if the work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helping out now in East Tennessee was an example of what they were taking about.

Yes, Cobble said, “It’s usurpation, whether it’s used for good or bad,” adding that communities come together in times of tragedy, noting specifically that “the Amish, they build their own barns. They raise their owns houses.”

“You know, good things can happen without a government,” he said. “So, my answer is yes, FEMA is clearly unconstitutional.”

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

People planning to stab Robespierre compilation

What was your plan in going to Robespierre’s house.

To talk to him in person.

What did you want to talk to Robespierre about?

I don’t want to give any response or explanation regarding this question.

Do you realize that your answers lead one to believe you had the intention of committing a crime, and that you must explain your intentions?

She does not want to explain further, and adds that she intended to ask him for instructions on the situation and the strengthening of the Republic.

Do you realize that your declarations and obstinacy to not want to explain yourself cannot be reconciled with such a plan, which is why I’m again asking you to explain yourself?

She persists in not wanting to answer.

Did anyone propose to you the plan of going home to Robespierre and did you tell anyone about it?

No.

Did you go to Robespierre’s house several times during the day?

No.

When you went to Robespierre, did you bring with you knives, and if yes, of which sort?

I had in my pocket two folding knives, one in tortoiseshell and the other in ivory, both trimmed in silver: the one made of ivory was given to me by my brother in 89, having found it at Prés-Saint-Gervais. The other was given to me by my grandmother three or four years ago. It was loaded with rust; I cleaned it and tried to remove the rust by scraping the blade with another knife, eight or nine days ago. I rarely use it.

Do you regularly carry two knives?

I carry the tortoiseshell one regularly, the ivory one showed up in my pocket, I didn’t know it was there.

When you went home to Robespierre, did you have the intention of using these knives to kill him?

No, moreover, we can judge as we please. Interrogation of Cécile Renault, held on May 24 1794

At that time, the indictment that I (Lecointre) was preparing against the traitor (Robespierre) and his accomplices was completed; Fréron who helped me with his insights, Barras, Rovère, Thirion, Courtois, Garnier de l'Aube, Guffroy and Tallien etc advised me to attack him in person, so that success would be more certain. The roles were divided to support my opinion, and to combat with force the sophisms of Robespierre, but they were of the opinion that the memoir should be printed and distributed an hour before being read at the National Convention: Guffroy was in charge and had promised, from the 6th, to have it printed; and it was solemnly sworn by us that if the truth succumbed, we would immolate the tyrant in the middle of the Convention. Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal [sic] par neuf représentans du peuple contre Maximilien Robespierre, pour le poignarder en plein sénat: rapport et acte d’accusation dont la lecture devoit précéder dans la Convention cet acte de dévouement (1794), page 4

Bourdon de l'Oise, rightly frightened by the ease with which, until then, several batches of his colleagues had been delivered to the proscriptions of this tribunal, had wanted to exclude from the number of defendants, whom the two committees alone could bring there, any representative of the people: he had insisted that the decision could only emanate from the Convention itself, and by a special decree. On this subject, a great rumor arose within the assembly: the members of the two committees, whom Bourdon's motion implicitly accused of wanting to get hold of their antagonists, with Couthon and Robespierre at the forefront, had strongly qualified him as a caluminator. Robespierre, in his fury at being thus unveiled, had forgotten himself to the point of throwing the epithet of ”scoundrel” against Bourdon; and, far from retracting Bourdon's claim, he had insinuated that the latter was on his way to get arrested; that the committees could provoke it. 

Bourdon, after this stormy session, had felt only too well that it was a fight to the death which had just begun between him and Robespierre: he had resolved to guarantee his own head, by the precipitous fall of that of Robespierre. It was with his own hand that he wanted to destroy this tyrant of the fatherland, this proud usurper who did not hesitate to degrade the national representation, in order to sacrifice it in detail to his disproportionate ambition. Once this decision to get rid of Robespierre by the dagger had settled in his head, Bourdon thought of taking, before the assassination attempt, some measures relative to his fortune. He took the keenest interest in a woman and several young children whose fate was linked to his own, and had made arrangements in their favor. 

Now, it was me that Bourdon had chosen, to be both the preserver of his final wishes and the protector, after him, of these beings he loved. The day after 23 Prairial, Bourdon brought me to his house, making me believe that it was just a simple dinner. He then occupied a small bachelor's accommodation on rue des Saints-Pères in a house on the left, which only had a narrow door, without a doorman. His apartment was pointed out to me by a woman who was coming out, in despair at not having been able to get him to intercede for her husband. I had barely entered when Bourdon, without further circumlocution, said to me: “Listen, we’ve known each other for a long time; I know that you are a moderate patriot, that you are not very passionate about the republic; but you are an honest man, a good friend; and it is for these two reasons that I was able to open up to you about my projects and the measures they involve. Robespierre is my personal enemy; he attacked and threatened me in the middle of the Convention: he wants to kill me, in order to be able to more easily dominate the Convention and seize absolute power. I want to thwart his ambitious designs by immolating him with my own hand.” 

At the same time, and as if he felt the need to convince me even more of the strength of his mind, he took out from under his bed an oblong casket, in which was tucked the coat he had worn on the day of the storming of the Bastille, the hat which, in the Vendée, had adorned his forehead as a representative of the people, and a large cutlass with which he was always armed on his expeditions. He took great care to point out to me that his coat was still covered with stains from the blood he had spilled at the Bastille, that his hat was riddled with the bullets of the Vendéens. As for the cutlass, he had more than once plunged it into the hearts of his enemies; it was the weapon with which he intended, at the first opportunity which presented itself, to strike Robespierre. I trembled lest the wall, which received these terrible confidences together with me, should share a syllable with anyone. Bourdon, to reassure me, said that for the development of his plan, he needed someone discreet enough to remain silent before and after the action; faithful enough to keep his will; zealous enough and enlightened enough to have it executed in due time. “It is you,” he said to me, “who will be my devoted confidant, I count on it and no longer worry about anything.” He immediately gave me his will with his instructions and some important titles. 

God knows with what agitations this gift filled my soul, what bad nights I passed with the possession of this perilous deposit! At the slightest suspicion, at the slightest word of revelation, I would have been a dead man. What would happen if Bourdon had gotten arrested before or after the consummation of his revenge and the slightest indication of correspondence with him was administered against me? The sixteen days I spent in this state of uncertainty felt like centuries. Finally arrived, against all foresight, and without the isolated provocation on the part of Bourdon de l'Oise, this day, forever precious for humanity, of the 9th of Thermidor.  Souvenirs de M. Berryer, doyen des avocats de Paris (1839)

Tallien: I demanded earlier that one tears apart the veil. With pleasure, I just saw that it is torn apart entirely, that the conspirators have been unmasked, that they will soon be annihilated, and that liberty will triumph. (Loud applause.) Everything announces that the enemy of the national representation will fall under its blows. We give a proof of our republican loyalty to our nascent republic. I forced myself to remain silent until now, because I knew of a man who approached the tyrant of France, that he had formed a proscription list. I did not want to remonstrate, but I have seen the session of the Jacobins yesterday: I have trembled for the patrie ; I have seen the army of a new Cromwell forming itself, and I am armed with a dagger in order to pierce its breast, if the National Convention did not have the courage to issue a décret d'accusation against him. (Loud applause.) Tallien at the Convention, July 27 1794

[eternal-learner]

Alternative Canadian Flags

For almost a century, Canada did not fly a flag of its own. There were instead the Union Jack and the Canadian Red Ensign. They took turns flying above Parliament. But neither was distinctly Canadian, nor permanent. The issue of a new flag was raised in Parliament in 1925 and again in 1945. It was dropped both times due to a lack of consent. Some clung to tradition, and none could agree on a unifying symbol. When Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson re-opened the debate in 1964, he offered Canadians the chance to “say proudly to the world and to the future: ‘I stand for Canada.’” A joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was assembled to decide on a suitable design. After months of vigorous debate, the final design was unfurled at Parliament Hill on 15 February 1965. The design process was open to the public. Thousands of suggestions were submitted. (source)

[beardedmrbean]

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Thursday downplayed the harassment of a Jewish student by anti-Israel protesters on the campus of UCLA and castigated the university for not doing more to protect the agitators. 

The “Squad” congresswoman shrugged off a viral video of the April incident, in which several masked protesters are seen physically blocking the student, who is wearing a Star of David necklace, as he tries to walk to his class on the UCLA campus. 

“Just for clarification, that video we just watched, we saw people moving around,” Omar said after the video was played during a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitic encampments on college campuses. 

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, one of three university leaders testifying at the hearing, was the target of Omar’s odd line of questioning that followed. 

“Was it possible, do you think, for that student to be able to get into campus? Was that student actually being blocked from entering campus?” the Minnesota Democrat asked Block. 

“Well, that was in the middle of campus,” Block responded. “They’re not being blocked from being on campus, maybe being blocked from a pathway on campus.”

“He should be allowed to pass,” the chancellor asserted. “I mean, any part of campus is open to students, so blocking him was really inappropriate.”

The so-called Palestine Solidarity Encampment at UCLA was the site of a violent clash between the anti-Israel protesters and counterprotesters on April 30, which saw pepper spray, firecrackers and fists deployed by a group of individuals fed up with the disruptive, weeklong demonstration. 

Omar went on to argue during the hearing that UCLA administrators should have done more to protect the encampment.

“You could have prevented this by protecting the diverse groups of pro-Palestinian students that were peacefully gathered on campus to share meals set in solidarity against the brutal genocide,” Omar told Block. “You could have prevented this by protecting these students’ First Amendment right to assemble.”

“How did you fail the students at many critical points where you could have intervened?” the congresswoman asked the UCLA chancellor. 

“Thank you for the question, but I’m sorry, I reject the premise,” Block responded, before being interrupted by Omar. 

“Can I finish my statement?” he asked.

“No,” Omar shot back. “Are any of these [counterprotesters] in jail?”

Block explained that authorities were summoned “as quickly as possible” and that police were still in the process of identifying the people involved in the skirmish. 

The encampment was declared an unlawful assembly soon after the melee and police arrested more than 200 anti-Israel demonstrators.

“This encampment was against policy, this violated time, place, and manner,” Block noted. 

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jay Kuo at The Big Picture:

When ABC settled with Donald Trump to the tune of $15 million, capitulating in a defamation case in which Trump would need to argue he is not actually an adjudicated rapist but rather just a sexual assaulter, observers of our descent into authoritarianism groaned. Bill Kristol of The Bulwark wrote, “ABC’s settlement with Trump feels like it could be an inflection point in the Orbanization of our politics. I hope it isn’t.” He’s referring here to Prime Minister Victor Orbán, a two-bit dictator and Putin apologist who rules the country of Hungary in Eastern Europe. Orbán would be less consequential in a normal world, but the MAGA right has elevated him to hero status because of his defiant calls to establish an illiberal government. In illiberal states, you have only the trappings of democracy. Elections are held, but they are fundamentally unfair because the media and big business are all behind the guy at the top. Balloting is designed to give an air of legitimacy to the regime, but there is no substantial path to power, even for a robust opposition. You can spot an illiberal state—one suffering from Orbánization—by some key indicia, which political analyst and commentator Fareed Zakaria discussed some 25 years ago when he warned of the rise of “illiberalism” in certain parts of the democratic West:

Consolidation of executive power via a charismatic leader;

Populism targeting minorities and the monitoring of civil society;

Curbs on academia and curricula and restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly;

Targeted repression of opponents; and

Abuse of state financial power and state resources.

Donald Trump is not yet in power for his second term, and already we are seeing all five of these indicia flash warning signs. Today I’m going to focus on a few examples of Trump-syle Orbánization. But in so doing, I choose not to wring my hands over the inevitable decline of the U.S. into something that resembles Hungary or, even worse, Russia. Instead, I want to highlight how existing democratic guardrails, if supported by the U.S. court system, independent media, and civil society at large, can prevent such a slide. While the threat of illiberal rule has grown acutely real, so too has our ability and determination to defeat it.

Republicans target Trump’s political opponents in a report

Trump has long promised to seek vengeance upon his political enemies, and chief among them is former Republican House member Liz Cheney. In 2021, she bucked her party and voted to impeach Donald Trump for his actions on and around January 6, when he sought to overturn the 2020 election first by conspiracy and then by encouraging a mob to attack the Capitol during the electoral count. Later, Cheney accepted an appointment to the January 6 Committee, where she helped lead public hearings to expose the extent of Trump’s derogation of duty and criminality. For these perceived transgressions, Cheney was booted from the GOP and defeated in a primary in her home state of Wyoming. And she has been the frequent target of Trump’s musings, including that she ought to face televised military tribunals and violent consequences for her policies and actions.

To undermine Cheney and the rest of the January 6 Committee, Republicans formed a special committee to investigate the investigators—a standard move for Republicans seeking to muddy the waters. This week, that committee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), who apparently was still smarting from the unproven suggestion by the Committee that he had led insurrectionists on a private tour of the Capitol in advance of the attack, released a preliminary report seeking to reshape the narrative around January 6. In that report, Loudermilk recommends that the FBI investigate Cheney over her handling of witnesses, in particular the way she convinced star witness and former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to reverse her earlier statements about what she’d seen and heard. Loudermilk highlighted Cheney’s interaction with Hutchinson and claimed Cheney illegally coached testimony and turned her against her attorney, Stefan Passantino. Cassidy wound up altering the testimony she had previously given the Committee.

Truth, courage, and the Constitution will safeguard the Committee

The actual series of events, based on the facts Hutchinson provided the Committee, was quite different. Hutchinson testified that it was Passantino who had actively discouraged her from offering fully truthful and complete testimony before the Committee, even while promising her lucrative employment with the man paying the legal bills. “The less you remember, the better,” Hutchinson said Passantino told her. “We’re gonna get you a really good job in Trump world.” That Cheney uncovered this blatant effort to obstruct justice should be celebrated, not condemned. And the record is clear that Cheney did nothing wrong in seeking to discover and expose the truth. If anything, it is Passantino who should have been investigated and charged for interfering with a witness’s testimony. The Loudermilk report is a chilling reminder, however, that Trump and the MAGA right are quite serious when they say they intend to use the Justice Department to punish Trump’s enemies. That threat is now heightened by the prospect of Trump lackey Kash Patel as FBI Director. Patel has been open about his plans to pursue investigations and charges against Trump’s political opponents. That Loudermilk advanced such a disgraceful report and recommendation against a former GOP colleague is a clear sign of how low the party has descended and how far sycophants within it will go to please Trump. But the January 6 Committee members don’t seem intimidated. In a Tuesday statement, Cheney described the report as “a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth,” adding that “no reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously.”

[...]

Trump’s threats to cancel broadcast licenses are empty

It’s common to assume that the craven capitulation by ABC in Trump’s defamation case was in reaction to Trump’s threats to cancel its broadcast license. Trump has made similar threats to CBS, claiming without evidence that the network had improperly edited Kamala Harris’s interview on 60 Minutes to make her answer sound more intelligible. (This is ironic, given that Trump canceled on the same interview and consistently sounds unintelligible, requiring major media to “sane wash” his speeches.) But as ABC’s and CBS’s lawyers no doubt know, Trump’s threats to use the power of the FCC to revoke the networks’ licenses are a paper tiger. First of all, Trump has made this threat on at least 15 occasions, according to a review by CNN. It noted, “His anti-broadcasting broadsides – against CBS, ABC, NBC, and even Fox – are almost always in reaction to interview questions he dislikes or programming he detests.” It’s becoming hard to take seriously the man who cries “Revoke!” Besides, canceling a network’s broadcast license because the president doesn’t like what it said about him would run smack into First Amendment challenges and almost certainly not survive them. The FCC agrees. At one point Trump tweeted an attack on NBC News’ reporting, writing, “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!” Then-FCC Chair Ajit Pai responded that the agency lacked authority to revoke its license in this manner.

[...]

Media guardrails can be strengthened through Anti-SLAPP laws

Trump’s goal here, of course, is to intimidate the press and cause them to think twice about printing anything negative about Trump. That is why it’s quite important to shore up independent media, even while papers owned by larger corporations and billionaires capitulate. It’s important to begin enacting or enforcing anti-SLAPP laws against the President-elect and any others who want to use the threat of lawsuits to chill free speech. A SLAPP suit is a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” meaning a complaint designed to silence and intimidate parties from speaking up or organizing. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent parties from using the courts and threats of a lawsuit to intimidate those exercising their First Amendment rights—exactly the kind of thing Trump is attempting.

[...]

A long way to go before Orbánization

These examples help demonstrate that Trump is a long way from the kind of grip that Viktor Orbán has on his country. In Hungary, Orbán maintains a stranglehold on the media, described by the Associated Press as a “sprawling pro-government media empire that’s dominated the country’s political discourse for more than a decade.” We rightfully should decry the kind of editorial capitulation we have seen lately in the U.S., where, for example, major papers’ billionaire owners at the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times thwarted their own editorial board’s endorsements of Kamala Harris, all in an attempt to suck up to Trump. Many such owners have business before the government concerning their other industries and concerns, and they’d apparently prefer not to see them endangered because one of their less profitable revenue centers decided to speak out against Trump. But such obsequious behavior, however repugnant, is still a far cry from the entire nation being dominated only by right-wing media, with no negative stories about Trump allowed to be published or broadcast anywhere. The more times Trump tries and fails to punish the media for its negative coverage, the less fearful many will grow of Trump. This includes his toothless threats to jail his political enemies. It includes his nonsensical threats to revoke broadcast licenses. And it includes his current efforts to intimidate reporters and pollsters through civil lawsuits that are destined to be tossed from court. Acts of resistance, whether from Liz Cheney or the Des Moines Register, need to be uplifted and publicized widely. The public must understand there remain leaders and news outlets that are unafraid of Donald Trump and will stand with their backs straight to face down his threats. This is not to suggest that the danger Trump poses is not real and imminent. We are admittedly closer than ever before to losing the liberal democracy and the republic we have kept for nearly 250 years. But the Orbánization of the U.S. is not an inevitability. Indeed, it is arguably Trump who faces an uphill fight from here. Trump still lacks many of the tools and much of the power Orbán has in his own country to seize full effective control of all media and stamp out all opposition. Trump likes to talk big, but his actions are often relatively diminished and inconsequential.

Jay Kuo wrote in The Big Picture on how America should resist the Orbánization of the USA under illiberal fascist demagogue Donald Trump.