#a matter of congressional record now

[thewitchoftheweed]

i’m a lifelong UFO weirdo so here’s some highlights of the House Oversight Committee’s public hearing on UAPs/UFOs:

- There’s no chance these craft are from secret US government testing programs because they have specific testing fields that assets in development cannot leave without significant notice and military approval.

- Other world governments also know about this phenomenon. A declassified treaty included parameters for joint international de-escalation in the event of a “malevolent UAP event.”

- All of the craft defy our current understanding of physics. They also look real weird. Descriptions given include a floating metal sphere with no visible propulsion and a black cube encased in a clear sphere.

- Nonhuman biologics have been recovered with crashes. Documentation of this exists.

- Nonhumans are no more infallible than us and also experience “mission failures,” which result in occasional manned and unmanned crashes.

- The first documented UFO incidents by the US military predate most of our advanced programs (1940s).

- UAPs have retaliated against humans, but the how’s and why’s were not given.

- There is a section of government that has been aggressively covering up the existence of UAPs/nonhuman remains, and they have used violence/the threat of violence to silence witnesses.

- There is a list of witnesses, which will be provided to the committee in a closed door session, that have firsthand knowledge/interaction with these craft. There is also a list of US defense contractors in possession of UAPs that is also being given to Congress in the closed door session.

- UAPs are difficult to document, even with our current technology, because they can shut down information collection systems in our most advanced planes. One photo of a UAP shot down recently had to be taken manually by the pilot.

- UAP encounters are now so common that they’re included as part of military pilots’ pre-flight briefings.

- “Has the US government contacted or communicated with nonhumans?” (long pause) “That is not a question I’m allowed to answer publicly.”

- At the end of the hearing: “We’ve made history here today.”

- Congress intends to follow up on this matter, and will invoke specific laws to bypass security classifications if necessary.

[mariacallous]

The Biden administration is launching a new initiative to end the war in Sudan—one of the world’s deadliest conflicts—with fresh peace talks following months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, according to five current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The United States plans to convene talks between Sudan’s two warring parties in Switzerland next month to revive long-stagnant efforts to end a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of people and pushed millions more to the brink of famine. Switzerland and Saudi Arabia will co-host the talks, and other regional powers and institutions with stakes in the conflict, including the United Nations, African Union, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, will be invited to observe, the officials said. The talks are scheduled for mid-August.

The U.S. special envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, plans to brief congressional overseers on the plan this week and will be actively involved in convincing top negotiators from both sides of the conflict to attend the upcoming talks, several officials said. If both sides signal their seriousness about ending the conflict and send senior negotiators, then U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield—both of whom have been closely involved in Sudan policy—could open or preside directly over the talks, the officials said. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, as they were not authorized to speak on the record.

Despite ongoing humanitarian efforts, Sudan’s war is worsening following 15 months of fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group. U.S. officials estimate that around 150,000 people have been killed—though precise figures are hard to come by—and as many as 11 million have been displaced due to the conflict.

“Sudan right now is probably the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and yet it’s not getting the attention it deserves,” Blinken said during an interview at the Aspen Security Forum on July 19.

A senior State Department official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said Blinken was “very personally engaged on Sudan policy, including forthcoming initiatives.”

“Far too much of the world is looking at this crisis saying ‘it’s far too complicated,’ or they’re looking away, and we’re looking at this crisis and saying, ‘yes, it is that complicated, and we have to find a way,’” the senior official said.

The conflict in Sudan has also become a locus of foreign powers competing for influence, which analysts say is prolonging and worsening the war. The SAF is backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, while the United Arab Emirates backs the RSF. Iran is supplying the SAF with weapons, and the Russian government is courting the SAF, offering military support in exchange for access to a Sudanese port on the strategic Red Sea corridor. Russian mercenary groups, meanwhile, have reportedly armed the RSF.

Earlier this month, the head of the SAF, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, hosted Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed for talks in Port Sudan, Sudan’s provisional capital under the SAF. (Both sides are still vying for full control over the capital city of Khartoum.) Since June, the RSF has seized swathes of territory near the borders to Ethiopia and South Sudan, heightening the risk of the conflict spilling into new territories or derailing the fragile peace process in Ethiopia’s Tigray region following a devastating war there that ended in 2022.

Both the SAF and RSF have been accused of widespread atrocities, including mass rape, torture, and civilian massacres. The United States has also concluded that the RSF is responsible for ethnic cleansing. Republican lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee have criticized the Biden administration for not having a coherent Sudan policy and introduced resolutions recognizing the atrocities in Sudan as acts of genocide—a step that the administration has yet to take.

Officials and aid workers focused on Sudan warn that while it is being overshadowed by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, Sudan risks becoming the world’s deadliest conflict and could spiral into a full-blown regional crisis without international intervention. Perriello has warned in the past that the conflict could become a “Somalia on steroids.” Around half of the people of Sudan, some 25 million people, face a food crisis. Of them, some 8.5 million people are acutely malnourished and more than 750,000 are on the brink of starvation, according to a report released last month by a group of experts from U.N. agencies and top aid organizations.

In 2021, Burhan seized power in a coup with the help of the head of the RSF, Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as “Hemeti,” derailing a yearslong effort to transition Sudan to a democracy. Tensions between the two leaders mounted as both jockeyed for power and influence, until they erupted into war in April 2023.

Past efforts to broker a peace deal in a format of talks hosted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, have failed, prompting Perriello and other envoys to push for a reset in a new venue with buy-in from other regional powers and the United States. This initiative follows recent efforts by the U.N. envoy for Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, to bring both RSF and SAF representatives to indirect talks in Geneva, focusing on the limited goals of expanding humanitarian aid access and protecting civilians. The two delegations did not directly meet, though the U.N. called the talks an “encouraging initial step in a longer and complex process.”

The U.S.-brokered negotiations are designed to achieve broader ambitions of bringing both sides face-to-face with a goal of ending the war.

“If a new round of peace talks do come to fruition, it would mean that all these outside actors who have been driving the conflict would now be on board with a peace process,” said Cameron Hudson, an expert on U.S.-African affairs  “If that is true, and everyone is rowing in the same direction, that would give us some cause for some hope in Sudan, really for the first time.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos:

Congressional Republicans, always eager to show that they put pleasing Donald Trump far ahead of doing anything productive for their constituents, are calling for an investigation into the debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Trump lost that debate badly. That loss is reflected in post-debate polls where Harris has seen a boost from a performance in which she was reassuringly calm while baiting Trump into dozens of unforced errors—including his baseless claims about immigrants eating pets. But Republicans are now claiming that ABC News, which hosted the debate, provided Harris with questions in advance and promised to fact-check Trump while leaving Harris unhindered. They’re also claiming that there is a “whistleblower” willing to detail how ABC helped Harris—though they can’t seem to decide if that whistleblower is dead or alive.

Trump’s real problem is that he’s a loser who never wants to admit he lost. That was true in 2020, and it’s still true today. To cover up his losing, Trump employs a three-part plan: insist in advance that his opponents will cheat, claim to have won no matter how badly he lost, and then spread conspiracy theories about why he lost. That certainly fits the pattern for the debate. Days before Harris and Trump met, Trump was already pushing his claim that ABC was going to provide Harris with the questions in advance. When Trump was shellacked on stage, he came down to the spin room to toss out a series of numbers that seemed made-up, claiming that polls showed he had won. “It was the best debate, personally, that I have ever had,” Trump said. “Polls are indicating that we got 90 percent, 60 percent, 72 percent, 71 percent and 89 percent.” He didn’t answer a reporter’s questions about where he got those numbers—though a review of his social media suggest he got them from some bogus right-wing “polls.” 

[...] There appears to be absolutely no evidence for this claim, or for the existence of this whistleblower, outside of some posts on Twitter. The claims originated from a Twitter account of an acknowledged MAGA supporter who wrote "I will be releasing an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower regarding the debate. I have just signed a non-disclosure agreement with the attorney of the whistleblower.” This claim was picked up and repeated by accounts with over 1 million followers.

On Friday, Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall called for a congressional investigation and said he would demand “all correspondence, records, and potential coordination” between ABC and Harris ahead of the debate. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, always near the bleeding edge of any conspiracy theory, was quick to pile on in a series of tweets culminating with a Sunday claim that this unknown whistleblower had died in a mysterious accident.

Greene then had to walk back her claim after it became clear that the story she had cited came from a fake news site filled with stories written using AI—a site that also attempted to spread a virus to anyone who followed the link. But even if the whistleblower isn’t dead, there’s apparently no evidence that they have anything to do with ABC or any knowledge about the debate, or exist. ABC has denied the veracity of the right-wing claims. The same account that said it was in touch with the whistleblower released a portion of the claimed affidavit on Sunday. The affidavit includes claims that Harris was unfairly provided with a podium “significantly smaller than that used by Donald Trump” to make her look better and that there was an agreement to not ask her about “her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions.”

House Republicans are calling for a partisan Keystone Kops investigation into ABC News over its handling of last Tuesday’s debate, a debate that Donald Trump lost handily to Kamala Harris fair and square.

[democracyunderground]

Read the letter President Biden sent to House Democrats telling them to support him in the election

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden wants Democrats in Congress to know he has no intention of exiting this year's election, sending them a letter on Monday on his personal letterhead.

Here is Biden's letter to the congressional Democrats whose backing he likely needs:

"Fellow Democrats,

Now that you have returned from the July 4th recess, I want you to know that despite all the speculation in the press and elsewhere, I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump.

I have had extensive conversations with the leadership of the party, elected officials, rank and file members, and most importantly, Democratic voters over these past 10 days or so. I have heard the concerns that people have — their good faith fears and worries about what is at stake in this election. I am not blind to them. Believe me, I know better than anyone the responsibility and the burden the nominee of our party carries. I carried it in 2020 when the fate of our nation was at stake. I also know these concerns come from a place of real respect for my lifetime of public service and my record as President, and I have been moved by the expressions of affection for me from so many who have known me well and supported me over the course of my public life. I’ve been grateful for the rock-solid, steadfast support from so many elected Democrats in Congress and all across the country and taken great strength from the resolve and determination I’ve seen from so many voters and grassroots supporters even in the hardest of weeks.

I can respond to all this by saying clearly and unequivocally: I wouldn’t be running again if I did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.

We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively. I received over 14 million votes, 87% of the votes cast across the entire nominating process. I have nearly 3,000 delegates, making me the presumptive nominee of our party by a wide margin.

This was a process open to anyone who wanted to run. Only three people chose to challenge me. One fared so badly that he left the primaries to run as an independent. Another attacked me for being too old and was soundly defeated. The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party.

Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?

I decline to do that. I feel a deep obligation to the faith and the trust the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned. The voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.

I have no doubt that I — and we — can and will beat Donald Trump. We have an historic record of success to run on. From creating over 15 million jobs (including 200,000 just last month), reaching historic lows on unemployment, to revitalizing American manufacturing with 800,000 jobs, to protecting and expanding affordable health care, to rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, highways, ports and airports, and water systems, to beating Big Pharma and lowering the cost of prescription drugs, including $35 a month insulin for seniors, to providing student debt relief for nearly 5 million Americans to an historic investment in combatting climate change.

More importantly, we have an economic vision to run on that soundly beats Trump and the MAGA Republicans. They are siding with the wealthy and the big corporations and we are siding with the working people of America. It wasn’t an isolated moment for Trump to stand at Mar-A-Lago and tell the oil industry they should give him $1 billion and he will do whatever they want.

That’s whose side Trump and the MAGA Republicans are on. Trump and the MAGA Republicans want another $5 trillion in tax cuts for rich people so they can cut Social Security and Medicare. We will never let that happen. Its trickle-down economics on steroids. We know the way to build the economy is from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down. We are finally going to make the rich and big corporations pay their fair share of taxes in this country. The MAGA party is also still determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which could throw 45 million Americans off their coverage. We will never let that happen either. Trump got rich denying rental housing to Black people. We have a plan to build 2 million new housing units in America. They want to let Big Pharma charge as much as they want again. What do you think America’s seniors will think when they know Trump and the MAGA Republicans want to take away their $35 insulin — as well as the $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket prescription costs we Democrats just got them? Or what do you think American families are going to think when they find out Trump and the MAGA Republicans want to hit them with a new $2,500 national sales tax on all the imported products they buy.

We are the ones lowering costs for families — from health care to prescription drugs to student debt to housing. We are the ones protecting Social Security and Medicare. Everything they're proposing raises costs for most Americans — except their tax cuts which will go to the rich.

We are protecting the freedoms of Americans. Trump and the MAGA Republicans are taking them away. They have already for the first time in history taken away a fundamental freedom from the American people by overturning Roe v. Wade. They have decided politicians should make the most personal of decisions that should be made by women and their doctors and those closest to them. They have already said they won’t stop there — and are going after everything from contraception to IVF to the right to marry who you love. And they have made it clear they will ban abortion nationwide. We will let none of that happen. I have made it clear that if Kamala and I are reelected, and the nation elects a Democratic House and Senate, we will make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again. We are the ones who will bring real Supreme Court reform; Donald Trump and his majority want more of the same from the Court, and the chance to add to the right-wing majority they built by subverting the norms and principles of the nomination and confirmation process.

And we are standing up for American democracy. After January 6th, Trump has proven that he is unfit to ever hold the office of President. We can never allow him anywhere near that office again. And we never will.

My fellow Democrats — we have the record, the vision, and the fundamental commitment to America’s freedoms and our Democracy to win.

The question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now. And it’s time for it to end. We have one job. And that is to beat Donald Trump. We have 42 days to the Democratic Convention and 119 days to the general election. Any weakening of resolve or lack of clarity about the task ahead only helps Trump and hurts us. It is time to come together, move forward as a unified party, and defeat Donald Trump."

Sincerely,

Joe Biden

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

President of the United States of America

July 8, 2024|Updated July 8, 2024 11:48 a.m.

[portmantaur]

I don’t think the pet eating narrative is funny at all esp bc of my probably somewhat individualized history of growing up in the racist midwest and vividly remembering how that exact, almost note for note, rhetoric was levied violently against asian immigrants in the area

but something I’ve been chewing on that makes me kind of sad and also a bit flummoxed is how that “story” (racist & xenophobic fabrication-cum-rumor) was only widely televised/spread basically like, the night before the debate, and some of the staff at abc saw that and IMMEDIATELY clocked that a man who used to be president of the United States would so absolutely take that bait and try to use it to serve his agenda that they were like “we need to have that fact-check ready to go”

that’s such a devastatingly sad state of affairs. they were right of course, and despite me personally being put off by the meme-ifying of it all, I -do- think that outside of the cultishly devoted voter set that guy has, it actually did damage to his general image (especially among the target demographic of the debate, which is frankly not me and not most of the people in my general circles) — AND it gave Harris the very relevant opportunity to laugh at him publicly which, whatever my or anyone else’s feelings on the matter, will ABSOLUTELY track well as a strategy with that same target demographic.

it just gives me kind of a headache to know that that behavior is so predictable in this person. like does anyone remember growing up with the bush jr elections and believing that we had hit rock bottom in terms of scraping the barrel of competency and education/intelligence for presidential candidates? there was so much meme-ification of bush’s misspeaking and lack of understanding on certain topics. like that “jib jab” or whatever animation that got hot for a minute during his re-election/2nd term. and I remember being a literal child in middle school believing that it couldn’t get worse than this, we couldn’t lower our standards for candidates any further without hitting bedrock.

& now at the ripe age of 32 I watched a man more or less proudly announce that he doesn’t know the difference between tariffs and taxes on live television, and also be correctly predicted to take the most unreliable and ignorant bait imaginable such that not even his opponent but the moderators had to have “so reports say that is entirely untrue” right there in the chamber because everyone and their mother knew when that racist story got published that a dude who was literally already president for four years would fully and gleefully take that bait — and then defend himself against the necessary fact check by saying, will full confidence, “well I saw it on television.”

& I have substantial issues with harris’ (sort of vague) platform and her refusal thus far to differentiate from the current administration on foreign policy specifically, AND her apparent insistence on running center in comparison to her congressional record to capture those (perceived) votes, and boy howdy did she say some really disappointing things —

but knowing that the debate is not really the stage for announcing new policy and also knowing me and like-minded people are not the target of the debate, AND seeing the performance of the opponent she’s up against im just.

im very tired man. everything happens so much.

[tanadrin]

...what exactly is the correct, good faith description of how common law constitutional systems work, then? i had conservative parents where extremely literal interpretation of the constitution was always assumed - never really got any perspective on living constitutionalism than that it was always just vague hogwash to justify doing whatever the speaker's exact policy preferences are. i understand that originalism/textualism as used are exactly the same, sure, but that's why i thought the only recourse was to dispense with constitutionalism and even the idea of "rights" altogether and go with a hobbes/schmitt (yes i know he's a nazi) bent. this isolates me from most other politics people on the internet a great deal, obviously! but if there's actually a case for living constitutionalism that doesn't reduce to "everything i want is always mandatory, everything my opponents want is always illegal" that can convince me that'd be great!

Originalism and textualism are not the same thing.

Originalism is the legal philosophy that the meaning of a law is based on the intent of the drafters of the law. In the U.S., this is actually not so hard a problem, because the Constitution was drafted in the 1780s, there was a big ratification debate which involved a lot of the people who participated in the drafting, and they made their own understanding of the text quite clear. Subsequent amendments were drafted even later, and like laws drafted by Congress, there are records of congressional debates and the like in which lawmakers lay out their stances very clearly.

Now, the problem with originalism as a legal philosophy is that you have to actually be good at historical research to apply it correctly. And if you are any good at historical research, and do not arbitrarily cherry-pick citations, you will unfortunately find that a lot of the dogmas of the conservative legal movement are actually not in evidence in the historical debates around the Constitution, its amendments, and significant U.S. statute laws. For this reason, among others, later conservative legal scholars have tried to make textualism a thing.

Textualism is the legal philosophy that the meaning of a law is based on the commonly understood meaning of the law at the time it was adopted. This is a weird approach! Like, I don't know much about (say) customs law, which is a complicated subject; if I tried to apply a customs law adopted in 2024 I would very probably fuck it up at some point. Even a highly trained criminal attorney or intellectual property lawyer might easily do so--the legal profession is big, and requires a lot of specialization! So why do non-expert opinions matter? And if expert opinions are what we are after, who is a better authority than the people who actually drafted a law?

Nonetheless, textualism is a highly motivated approach at avoiding the limits of originalism, and the key to applying textualism is to do your historical research even worse than if you were trying to do originalism. For example, D.C. v Heller (2008) found that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right to bear arms; but this is a terrible decision from both an originalist point of view and a textualist point of view, because we have lots of gun control legislation from much closer to the time the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791 that would violate the 2nd amendment as interpreted in 2008; it is clear that the 2nd amendment was certainly not commonly understood at the time of its adoption to protect an individual right to bear arms, but was more about protecting the rights of states to raise and arm militias--which also happens to be consonant with a lot of the other historical evidence we have around why the 2nd amendment was adopted, and what the purpose of the Bill of Rights was, vis a vis the restraint of federal power against the states (cf. the Federalist Papers).

A big problem for any attempt at a purely deterministic, mechanistic application of law is that law is not a magical or mathematical formula with a single unambiguous meaning, because we create law through language, and that's not how human language works. Human language is not infinitely flexible, but it is equally not perfectly precise; it frequently admits ambiguity. And how we understand texts, and the values that are key to interpreting those texts, evolve over time: the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," but what is considered "cruel and unusual" in 2024 is very different from what was "cruel and unusual" in 1791. Should the literal meaning of 1791 prevail--in which case the law can only possibly regulate things which actually existed in 1791, and it's perfectly OK for the Feds to ransack your email without a warrant because it's not within your 'houses, papers, and effects'--or should the general principle which is shared between 1791 and 2024 prevail--in which case it's not insane to read the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" as a prohibition on the death penalty if we come to understand the death penalty as cruel or unusual?

All texts require us to negotiate their meaning. This does not mean communication is impossible, or that a text can say anything you want it to mean. What it means is that ambiguity in communication is unavoidable. Law is an effective tool because it is a Schelling point for cooperation, which is what lets us build peaceful and ordered societies, and allows us to do politics without killing each other. Textualism and originalism not only deny the very inarguable fact of ambiguity in language, I think they work pretty hard against law being an actually useful Schelling point, and attempt to turn it into a brute exercise of power. Which is not good if you want a society to actually function!

Outside of originalism and textualism there are lots of different views on legal philosophy and they are complicated. Legal realism and legal positivism are two historically popular schools of thought. The general question of legal philosophy is called "jurisprudence," which is both thinking about what the law is and what it should be; there are literally whole textbooks on the subject. Law is complicated! There is a reason you can get advanced degrees in this stuff!

[gayfertilitygoddess]

If you live in North Carolina and feel like calling your senators, you can give feedback on Thom Tillis’s remarks about the Dubious Oligarchs Grabbing Everything.

Tl;dr: he accuses the democrats of trying to hold back progress, makes a vague reference to “having some guardrails,” claims the muskrat is actually an astute businessman and that running the us govt like one of the muskrat’s businesses is going to solve all of our problems.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-24/senate-section/article/S750-1

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, this week has been interesting, as I have seen from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and all the horrible things that are going to come before us. And it reminded me of a book that I used as a basis for management consulting training back in 1998. It was called ``Who Moved My Cheese.'' It is a story about two mice and two small people in a maze. The mice are named Sniff and Scurry, and the two little people are Hem and Haw. And it is only about a hundred-page book. But the premise of the book is the cheese was moved in the maze, and the challenge was to figure out where the food source was.

Well, Sniff and Scurry, the mice, actually did a pretty good job, fairly quickly, to kind of move where the cheese was and deal with the status quo. But Hem and Haw really had more challenges.

And I think we have some hemming and hawing going on here in Washington right now because they just don't understand business practices that we are trying to apply to government that have never been applied at scale before.

And I decided that I would give you an idea because a lot of people think that Elon Musk is off the chain and causing all kinds of havoc. I haven't seen that yet. As a matter of fact, if time allows, I am going to talk a little bit about the narrative this week over the payment system and all the detailed payment data that supposedly got out--which is patently untrue, contrary to what press reports have said.

But I thought I would start with the story of SpaceX. When Elon Musk decided to invest in and create SpaceX, he did something that has never been done before in this industry. He decided that instead of doing what the old players do--which is to be perfect, never launch a rocket until you are absolutely certain that that mission can be accomplished--he decided that you can learn from failure.

This is actually a social media post of one of his first launches where the booster failed to come back to Earth. His immediate response--whether it was either his instincts or really good communications people--his immediate response was a social media post that said: ``Great launch, unscheduled RUD''--R-U-D, which is rapid unscheduled disassembly.

So he was telling his shareholders and the people that have invested in SpaceX, that what happened, on its face, looked like a disaster. But, in fact, it was being willing to fail--provided that human life was not at risk--that being willing to fail was how you accelerate and you bypass everybody who has a partnership with the Federal Government. You get through all of that, and now you have the premiere launch platform, while all the other competitors have been working on it for years or decades, because he understands the concept that I understand in business, where I spent most of my life, that you learn from failure, if you know how to measure it and you are responsive and resilient.

Now, when I advised clients on enterprise transformation, we would push the envelope. We would pull back if we thought it was a market reputation risk or a center business risk.

So I believe that we need to do more of that, but we need to have guardrails, clearly.

Now there are just people that they just can't figure out where the cheese is. Now, if I just go back to the one area on payments, I have to admit, when I first heard about the payments information with read-only access being provided to someone who may be technically a government employee, but not a career government employee, it did give me concern.

So I had my staff dig into it. And since then, the administration has put out a fact sheet that anybody who is concerned about what is happening in the payments platform should look at it.

They are not looking at detailed payment data. What they are looking at is the way payments are processed to determine whether or not there is an opportunity to do it more efficiently, more cost effectively, and leave more money in the U.S. Treasury as a result--maybe more money that we can use to retire our debt. That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

People said they are getting top secret information and confidential information they shouldn't have.

I asked the specific question. I have been assured that if there is classified information, that the only ones who are going to see it are people that already have the appropriate clearances. And I have also been assured that there is no confidential information being passed.

So I would defy those in the press or maybe some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am all about facts here. If I have established no reputation in the U.S. Senate, it is that I am tedious and I complete my due diligence.

I went to the administration. I asked these questions, and I believe we are dealing with a false narrative because people don't want to know where the cheese has been moved. They have got to get used to change.

I have been in the U.S. Senate for 10 years. I am sick of saying: Medicare has to get better. I am sick of saying: Medicaid has to get better. I am sick of saying: We are not getting people more healthy on Medicaid today. I am sick of hearing people say that on both sides of the aisles, folks.

So if we don't take some calculated risk, then we are going to be talking about the same sort of vexing issues 10 years from now.

And so I want to ask everybody to reject this narrative that we are going too fast, too soon, too many things on the line, and let's get to specific examples.

I have used the example that has dominated the press this week to determine most of what is being said is a red herring to take the President and, in this case, Elon Musk, off of the trail of trying to find efficiencies. You have facts to dispute that? Come to the Senate floor; I can learn from it. But stop creating a false narrative because you don't want to go through change because you want to continue to establish and follow the status quo, which is failing the American people and failing to fulfill promises that I have heard people make for the last decade.

Mr. President, I come here to say--I also shared a story. I had a friend of Greek ancestry call me this week and say: What is going on with Mr. Musk?

I will say, Mr. Musk has put out some social media posts that are incorrect. He actually is one of the reasons why we are having to complete this due diligence because he was talking about looking at payment data versus having professionals who--some of them are career personnel looking at source code to figure out how to make it better. He probably needs to tighten it up.

But my Greek friend told me--when I thought about all this stuff, I said: I think the President has enabled Mr. Musk and other people a lot like Icarus's father provided him with wings. They were made of wax and feathers. If you know mythology, the idea was for Icarus to fly and never go so low as to drown in the sea but never go so high as to have his wings melted, his feathers float away, and ultimately drown in the sea.

So to those who are looking at all of this in the way that I am, I want that sweet spot. I want those who are looking at government efficiencies to understand the rules. They need to understand confidentiality, national security, and when lives are on the line.

When we are talking about DOD, the intel community, the Foreign Service, you need adult supervision in the room to make absolutely certain we don't compromise or put those men or women in danger. But in the meantime, if we really want to force change, if we really want to fulfill the promises that we made to the American people when we took control of Washington, we have to get people comfortable with change.

We have to start fulfilling promises--some of the big promises that for the 10 years I have been here, I heard it every year, and we haven't made appreciable progress.

Look, the American people are patient. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will present facts, not innuendo that could be politically motivated at best or just bad information at worst, then we can get through this, and we can do right by the American people as a result.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

By Don Ford

I’ve heard more folks than I can count say that the risk of COVID exposure has kept them from seeking needed medical care, and it shouldn’t be this way.

On our Twitter Spaces calls we’ve tried our best to build strategies that can help folks through this process, so they can be COVID safe, advocate for themselves, and also while receiving adequate medical care.

But there are so many people, and we could never help everyone if we take it case by case. As with many problems that are laid on the individual, this is a greater institutional problem, and we need that to be reflected in our government.

If that sounds about right, then oh boy, do I have something for you.

A federal agency wants to hear from you if you have had trouble accessing healthcare because of COVID… or rather, realistic concerns of COVID exposure.

x.com/StinkRatsCharms/status/1853117035699487229 Technically, this survey is not COVID specific…

But is there a greater accessibility issue for medical care?

While the framing is identifying barriers for disability access, that should include things that can make you disabled, and as this is the Congressional watchdog group who gathers data for the purpose of “accountability, integrity, and reliability”…

This action could be one of our best opportunities to push for regulatory changes.

The agency behind this has an excellent record of their results being widely accepted.

Here is an additional link —→ gaosurvey.gao.gov/jfe/form/SV_4NqcK4po5BfajZA

I should point out that this is limited to Americans, generally speaking.

Now, this isn’t going to instantly solve our problems, or be the final move in advocating for ourselves, but it is a VERY strong step forward.

The data this group creates is generally considered to be extremely valuable when dealing with Federal regulatory agencies.

We need to reach as many folks as possible to find those affected.

So, please, share this information with your communities.

And, speaking of reaching people…

The election is, of course, on people’s minds. There is going to be an additional call to action soon directed at the FDA, regardless of who wins the election tomorrow…

Hopefully, it’s decided tomorrow and not dragged out.

But regardless of who wins, the fight continues… just in different forms.

However, the President doesn’t actually change until January 20th, 2025.

That means there are two and a half months to advocate before anything officially shifts. So, regardless of who wins, we can push forward for as much as we can before the agencies could potentially change.

No matter what happens, it’s a different President, which means regulatory shifts.

And that means, it’s an excellent time to make some last minute pushes…

Specifically, pediatric Novavax access. The kid’s version is not some separate vaccine; it’s the same vaccine.

It’s tested and safe but the FDA is playing games to restrict market access.

Expect more information on this soon, but the FDA and CBER are making Novavax go in circles to prove their vaccine is functional, while vaccines go unused. Shots that could be protecting our children going to waste because of manipulative regulatory hurdles is extremely frustrating.

So, we’re going to need support from everyone who has needed Novavax or benefited from it, because if only parents who needed it for their kids did it alone, then we would never create the access that parents and society as a whole desperately need.

Until then, we brace for impact for our election results and no matter what happens we will continue pushing forward for that better tomorrow.

[thepolyamorouspolymath]

So I mentioned the examples of Thomas Becket and David Souter here before as times that men rose to their offices in shocking ways in opposition of evil.

I'm back for a bit more practical analysis that you may find some solace in after seeing the nominees for Cabinet and agency heads.

These people are morons. Not only are they morons but they are morons with no friends in DC. Now this is again a bit of a journey, but follow me on it fir a few minutes...

Donald Trump is lazy. He doesn't want to be President. He wants the benefits of being President, but he doesn't actually want to do the job -- it's why dictatorship appeals to him, because he wants to have to do nothing more than issue a command. Actually passing policy is fucking hard, grueling work.

Now, I do not deny his first term was awful -- but in terms of actual policy implemented, there was fairly little. There was a whole lot of talk which led to a horrifying culture of terror, a few really godawful policies that he could just wave a pen over, but actually look at how many new laws he championed that passed.

Bet you thought there were more, huh?

What Congress passed were bills that were congressional priorities like the tax bill -- that wasn't what Trump wanted, it was what congressional Republicans wanted -- or that everyone wanted like Covid stimulus.

Because it is very easy to get Congress (mostly the Senate) to SAY anything. They'll SAY they support his policies every hour on Fox News.

And then they will simply never bring a bill to a vote. All of the short term gains of being a vocal supporter with none of the long term ramifications ov having a yea vote on your record.

Seriously, it's a matter of public record, you can look it up and see that exact behavior -- no one writes or sponsors a bill on shit he wants (which the administration can't do, a Senator has to), if one is, then it never leaves committee through various means.

Just one big gaping example... remember his wall? The one that's barely been touched? Huh I wonder why. Oh wait no, I know why -- Congress didn't fund it. They never said a word, they just did nothing.

The cabinet is responsible for getting those bills written, finding sponsors, helping shepherd them through a vote.

And Trump has chosen an entire group of people who have no political capital, not a single friend in the Senate -- including JD Vance.

Yes they will probably march in lockstep with his orders that are upheld by SCOTUS (most of his executive orders were knocked down by the Court in his first term and I honestly find them a bit unpredictable since there are at least 3 loyal to no clear judicial framework or philosophy). But they will never be able to convince anyone in the Senate to do a thing (some may not even get confirmed -- Gaetz is not the only one that I think could face challenges).

And GOP Senators who paid attention -- which should have been most of them -- should have all realized they don't actually have to support Trump to stay on his good side. They just need to stay silent. Trump watches what is said on Fox, not what happens in Congress. If they make occasional comments of support on things they'll never need to vote on and just don't comment on most things, they'll stay in his good graces (and it's shockingly easy to just not comment because House members trip over themselves to comment on everything and give reporters all the soundbites they need, and while they often do back it up with votes, they have very very few powers exclusive to them, they need the Senate too and Senate Republicans aren't all that crazy about House Republicans either.)

So yes, listen to what they want to do because the people need to be heard opposing it. But take it with a grain of salt and watch what the Senate actually DOES.

Because Matt Gaetz will never get a bill through the Senate. RFK Jr will never get a bill through the Senate.

And Donald Trump is never going to put in the 18 hour days 7 days a week for months necessary to shepherd policy himself.

The President is not a king, no matter what they try to convince you of -- his wants are not automatically granted.

[thatstormygeek]

The U.S. Senate voted 72-11 Tuesday night to reject a proposal to require a State Department report on Israel’s human rights record amid the U.S. ally’s war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders brought the resolution under a little-known provision in federal law that allows Congress to order a State Department investigation of any foreign country receiving U.S. military aid. A simple majority vote in the Senate would have forced a State Department report within 30 days. Before the vote, Sanders said Israel was within its right to retaliate against Hamas after its terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, but that the counteroffensive by Israel has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, affecting nearly 2 million civilians. Israel’s military campaign has been aided by U.S. supplies, he said, making congressional oversight necessary. The resolution would only order a report, he said. Any further action would have to be approved by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president. “We must ensure that U.S. aid is being used in accordance with international human rights and our own laws,” Sanders said in a floor speech just before the vote. “A vote for this resolution is only to request more information on a tragic situation… No matter what your view on this terrible war may be — you agree with me, you don’t agree with me — we cannot bury our eyes in the sand.”

Not that it's surprising the country that refuses to allow tracking of gun deaths also refuses to be concerned about funding human rights abuses.

The federal law Sanders used to bring the resolution “was never intended to be used against an ally in a war,” Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said.

And this is why the Dems will never actually prevail. They don't stand for anything, either. You give a shit if your aid money is going to human rights abuses or you don't. It shouldn't matter if you're applying the law to an ally or opponent. In fact, you should be more likely to apply it to your allies, because those are the guys you're standing with.

Then again, this country would have to think it's bad to commit human rights abuses to be willing to hold our allies to that, and they say actions speak louder than words, so....

“Israel has the right to defend itself and go to war with Hamas, who started this whole situation,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. “Israel does not have the right to go to war with the entire Palestinian people … And sadly that is what is happening right now.”

I'm sure the Pussy Hat Brigade is crowing about how antisemitic Bernie Sanders is since they've had a serious hate boner going for him for years. But he's not wrong here.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

THE GOP DOUBLES DOWN

TCinLA

I thought waking up this morning to see a photo of Trump at his hatealong last night in Waco with him standing in front of photos of the January 6 insurrection while the “song” “Justice for All” he recorded with the “J6 Prison Choir,” the insurrectionists he claims are patriotic Americans who participated in a “righteous protest” - essentially watching him remove the mask and admit he did in fact incite the insurrection and saying “Yeah, I did it - what are you going to do about it?” - was as strange as things were going to get this final Sunday in March, 2023.

I thought having a confessed statutory rapist and draft dodger - one-hit wonder Ted Nugent - calling Volodomyr Zelenskyy a “homosexual weirdo” was a about as crass a new low for the MAGAts as things were going to get.

I thought having Marjorie Traitor Goon publicly creating an alternative reality by calling the J6 defendants political prisoners who are being “badly treated” in a facility where they have access to computers and the internet, exercise and health services - all completely unavailable to the average inmate of the DC Jail - was a completely laughable denial of reality.

I was wrong.

Yesterday, the three blind mice - Gym Jordan and his co-conspirators masquerading as chairmen of three House committees - responded to District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s reply to their first letter sent this past week by doubling down in a second letter on their intention to intervene in the New York City investigation ahead of possible criminal charges against Trump, revealing they plan to to consider whether Congress should take legislative action on three separate issues “to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials.” In other words, to find a way to make such a prosecution of Donald Trump impossible.

Trump admits his complicity in the January 6 insurrection and leaders of the Republican Party take steps to insulate him from accountability before they even know what specific charges he will be indicted on.

The Republicans declare war on reality and the rule of law. THAT is as strange as things got on this final weekend of March, 2023.

Bragg responded to the letter after it became public last night, writing, “We evaluate cases in our jurisdiction based on the facts, the law, and the evidence. It is not appropriate for Congress to interfere with pending local investigations. This unprecedented inquiry by federal elected officials into an ongoing matter serves only to hinder, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors. As always, we will continue to follow the facts and be guided by the rule of law in everything we do.”

A spokesperson for Oversight Committee Democrats has stated, “Chairman Jordan, Comer, and Steil believe former President Trump is above the law. This outrageous position is further evidence of former President Trump and MAGA extremists’ hold on Congressional Republicans.”

The MAGA Republican Party has now officially declared war on the rule of law.

Here are the high points from the Letter:

“Notably, your reply letter did not dispute the central allegations at issue—that you, under political pressure from left-wing activists and former prosecutors in your office, are reportedly planning to use an alleged federal campaign finance violation, previously declined by federal prosecutors, as a vehicle to extend the statute of limitations on an otherwise misdemeanor offense and indict for the first time in history a former President of the United States.”

No, you morons, it wasn’t “previously declined” by federal prosecutors. The Trump-appointed Attorney General Bill Barr, citing the so-called “Nixon rule” that a sitting president cannot be indicted and prosecuted, ORDERED the DOJ attorneys to drop the case.

“Contrary to the central argument set forth in your letter, this matter does not simply involve local or state interests. Rather, the potential criminal indictment of a former President of the United States by an elected local prosecutor of the opposing political party (and who will face the prospect of re-election) implicates substantial federal interests, particularly in a jurisdiction where trial-level judges also are popularly elected. If state or local prosecutors are able to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of Presidents of the United States (former or current) for personal acts, this could have a profound impact on how Presidents choose to exercise their powers while in office. For example, a President could choose to avoid taking action he believes to be in the national interest because it would negatively impact New York City for fear that he would be subject to a retaliatory prosecution in New York City.”

This is wholly and completely specious, but what Republican argument about anything isn’t?

“Likewise, because the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting the physical safety of former or current Presidents, any decision to prosecute a former or current President raises difficult questions concerning how to vindicate that interest in the context of a state or local criminal justice system. For these reasons and others, we believe that we now must consider whether Congress should take legislative action to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials, and if so, how those protections should be structured.”

“Second, the Committees’ inquiry has an obvious legitimate legislative purpose and is “a subject on which legislation could be had.” To begin with, as discussed above, Congress has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly those tried before elected state and local trial-level judges. Therefore, the Committee on the Judiciary, as a part of its broad authority to develop criminal justice legislation, must now consider whether to draft legislation that would, if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such improper state and local prosecutions. These legislative reforms may include, for example, broadening the existing statutory right of removal of certain criminal cases from state court to federal court.”

Here is the argument to use the federal government to protect Trump.

“Moreover, as discussed above, your prosecutorial decision to indict a former President may cause a potential confrontation between federal and local law-enforcement authorities. Federal law requires the United States Secret Service to protect a former President.8 Therefore, your unprecedented prosecutorial decision raises the potential for conflict between the federal law-enforcement officials required to protect the former President and local law-enforcement officials required to enforce your indictment and exercise control of him throughout his presence in the local criminal justice system. Such a novel and potentially fraught collision of federal and local law-enforcement officials with the safety of a former President at stake is certainly a matter of interest for the Committees. The Committees’ oversight is necessary to inform potential legislation that would address or remedy any potential conflicts between federal and local authorities.”

You mendacious morons! It has already been established that state and local law enforcement would COOPERATE with the Secret Service, which would coordinate Trump surrendering after indictment. There is no possibility whatsoever of any “shoot out” happening.

This is the most audacious assault on the rule of law by the Republicans. They are ALL, each and every one of them, traitors to their oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, because ALL THEM ARE THE DOMESTIC ENEMY.

[TCinLA]

[omamervt]

Can't believe I have to point this out, but 47% of people under 29 is an incredibly minor drop compared to the last two elections.

What the above graph has shown me is that even with Biden's approval rating going down month over month, and it looks like that was a year before the mask-off genocidal maniac arc began, only 3% of voters had become disengaged?

And let's be real, the reason that somewhere in the ballpark of 50% of youth voters consistently is considered "Record numbers" if you look back through basically any election since at least the 2000s is because youth have to fight against a significant amount of disenfranchisement. People under 30 have virtually no job security, so they risk losing employment if they have to miss a few hours to make sure their vote's in before polls close. They're not "supposed" to retaliate for stuff like that but fighting it costs time and money most of us don't have. And if you also happen to be a minority? forget it, assuming you HAVE access to a polling location you might risk facing violence for trying to do so, and the police will side with the aggressors assuming they AREN'T the aggressors. Fix that shit if you wanna see youth engagement go anywhere above "roughly half."

And I can't speak to the current number of people committed to vote, as I haven't seen those numbers, but I do know that disengagement likely hasn't been affected THAT much considering how big the "Undecided" vote was in some states. That's not people who are shut down or refusing to vote. That's people using their vote in a context where the results literally don't matter to send a message. They're engaged. Count your fucking blessings, those people are still gonna vote for blue candidates in at LEAST the state/local elections, probably their congressional representatives too, assuming those people didn't also mask off as genocidal monsters.

I personally am threatening to withhold my vote from Biden, a game of chicken I am willing to play from now until either November 5 or an end to military aid to Israel, and a lot of the "Democrats are also evil" sentiment is shared by people who ARE politically engaged, but don't see any value in declaring a side unless one of those sides is gonna do the right thing in regards to at least ONE of the three literal genocides our government has been funding, some of them going since before I was born.

Oh and let's not forget we're still losing, minimum, 4000 people per month to Covid, and even the survivors are becoming increasingly disabled. That's probably also having an effect on people's voting habits. If you don't see the connection, YOU have a problem.

Decrying the lack of youth voters without addressing their issues beyond saying, "if you don't show up, the republicans WIN!" isn't magically gonna make those issues go away.

Saying "voting doesn't matter" might reach your younger peers online but it certainly hasn't reached Clangus Hargbarg who was part of the kkk in 1951 and still sends in his ballot. He hasn't missed a one.

[webntrmpt2x]

Jeet Heer

First two paragraphs:

“Elon Musk, often described as Donald Trump’s shadow president, has quickly morphed into something much more dangerous: Trump’s co-autocrat. Hitherto, Trump’s biggest threat to American democracy came when he incited the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The event was typically Trump in that it was lurid, violent, theatrical, and televised. January 6, like Trump’s first term, demonstrated that he had the ability to menace democratic norms and spur on mayhem—but not to really control the ultimate operation of government.

“For his second term, Trump has tried to make amends for that failure by recruiting true believers who share his passion for subduing the government, including running roughshod over the system of checks and balance. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who specializes in taking over large companies and remaking them in his image, has been Trump’s most important ally in this agenda, acting as considerably more than an aide. In truth, Musk is emerging as a government within the government, using the time-honored revolutionary tactic of developing dual power in order to seize control.”

Another excerpt—one of Muskrump’s methods;

“Musk is currently targeting mainstream Protestant churches involved in immigration resettlement. On X, the social media site he owns, Musk went after Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, DC, who delivered a sermon calling for compassion to immigrants at a service Trump attended. Musk retweeted a claim that Episcopal Migration Ministries received $53 million for immigration resettlement and said, “She’s on the take.” There is a strong element of political theater in this smearing of Budde, as in Musk’s attack on the Lutheran church. Government funding of social programs run by religious organizations is a long-standing practice and already a matter of public record. But Musk is trying to create the illusion that he’s uncovered a deeply buried government secret.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Molly Redden at HuffPost:

In his Democratic primary challenge to Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Wesley Bell, the St. Louis County prosecutor, is raising money hand over fist — and not all of it from Democrats. Bell’s latest campaign finance filings include donations from notable sources such as Steven Tilley, a GOP former Missouri House speaker who’s now a lobbyist, and Daniel Loeb, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Third Point, who has donated millions to Republican causes.

David Steward, a billionaire tech CEO from St. Louis, has also supported Bell. Steward recently served as the finance chair of a super PAC that supported Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) run for president. All told, Bell raised more than $65,000 from donors who also gave to one of Missouri’s two Republican senators, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, in their most recent campaigns, or Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, the leading Republican candidate for governor. The influx of money for Bell from donors who normally back Republicans comes after the prosecutor abandoned a Senate campaign against Hawley in order to challenge Bush. Bell jumped races in late October, a decision he partly credits to Bush’s stance on Israel’s military action in Gaza. Shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, Bush introduced a resolution for a cease-fire and condemned Israel’s retaliatory military action as an “ethnic cleansing campaign.”

Around that time, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the deep-pocketed pro-Israel lobbying group, unveiled a plan to spend up to $100 million to unseat Bush and her fellow Israel critics. The group endorsed Bell in February. “Wesley Bell is a progressive prosecutor who will stand up for President Biden’s agenda and oppose MAGA extremists and Donald Trump ― and everyone who supports or donates to his campaign knows that’s exactly what to expect from Wesley,” said Anjan Mukherjee, an adviser to Bell’s campaign. “Cori Bush has proven she would rather get headlines and protest than do the work of getting progressive results for St. Louis.”

[...] Bush, a nurse, became a political activist after the 2014 police killing of Mike Brown and the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri. In 2020, with support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and progressive groups that helped elect other left-wing Squad members, Bush pulled off a shocking upset of longtime incumbent Rep. Lacy Clay Jr. She has become an advocate for Black maternal health, abortion rights and diverting money from law enforcement to public services. Bell’s political career was forged in Ferguson, too, where he became a city councilmember after the unrest. In 2018, Bell rode a wave of enthusiasm for progressive prosecutor candidates to become the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney. Bell is campaigning on elements of his record, such as his efforts to reduce the number of people jailed for minor offenses. But some activists who helped elect him claim he failed to differ much from his predecessors, starting with when he declined to seek charges over Brown’s death.

If you thought that Wesley Bell was going to primary incumbent Rep. Cori Bush (D) a year ago and raising money from Republicans and pro-Israel Apartheid folk, you'd been laughed out the room.

In the #MO01 Democratic Primary, a pair of politicians who had their rise fueled by the Ferguson protests in the wake of the killing of Mike Brown nearly 10 years ago are facing off against each other.

Bell initially was gonna run for #MOSen, but switched instead to the Congressional set currently occupied by Bush due to her resolutely pro-Palestinian stances on the Israel/Hamas War and Gaza Genocide.

[masterofd1saster]

ERA nonsense

Biden declares the ERA the law of the land — but it likely will not matter The White House acknowledges the action won’t have the force of law.*** https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/17/biden-era-amendment-004495

Article V of the Constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress***

2/3 of the House and Senate proposed the ERA in 1972 and set a seven year deadline for ratification. The amendment was not ratified by 1978; indeed four states rescinded ratification, and South Dakota said it was rescinding if it weren't ratified fast. A simple majority - less than 2/3 - of congress voted to extend the initial deadline to June 30, 1982. The ERA was not ratified by then.

Several states sued to ensure that the ERA was shown to have failed ratification. Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981) noted that the ERA had failed ratification. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment because the case had become moot on June 30, 1982 when the ERA failed ratification again. Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982).

Some people won't stopped beating a dead horse. The worst won't stop even when it's a petrified fossil. Accordingly, someone asked DoJ if ERA could be considered ratified if the five states that rescinded were not counted as rescinding and if all the states that ratified at any time - even after the deadline had lapsed. DoJ said

we conclude that the ERA Resolution has expired and is no longer pending before the States. Even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the 1972 proposal, that action would not complete the ratification of the amendment, and the ERA’s adoption could not be certified under 1 U.S.C. § 106b. In addition, we conclude that when Congress uses a proposing clause to impose a deadline on the States’ ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment, that deadline is binding and Congress may not revive the proposal after the deadline’s expiration. Accordingly, should Congress now “deem [the ERA] necessary,” U.S. Const. art. V, the only constitutional path for amendment would be for two-thirds of both Houses (or a convention sought by twothirds of the state legislatures) to propose the amendment once more and restart the ratification process among the States, consistent with Article V of the Constitution. https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1232501/dl

Those who insisted on grinding petrified horse fossil fragments pursue the issue in court. As at least one court says

To summarize, the Archivist has no duty to publish and certify the ERA. Section 106b permits him to consider whether a state's ratification complies with a congressionally imposed ratification deadline. And a ratification deadline in a proposing resolution's introduction is just as effective as one in the text of a proposed amendment. Plaintiffs’ ratifications came after both the original and extended deadlines that Congress attached to the ERA, so the Archivist is not bound to record them as valid. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for mandamus is denied. Equally significant as the Court's holding is what it does not hold. In light of its decision on the deadline issue, the Court does not reach the question of whether states can validly rescind prior ratifications. Nor does the Court make any statement on whether Congress's extension of the ERA deadline was constitutional. It does not need to. If the extension was unconstitutional, then the original deadline bars ratification; if the extension was constitutional, then the extended deadline has passed too. Congress has not tried to revive the ERA despite both deadlines’ expirations, so the Court is not confronted with that difficult issue either. *** Lastly, the Court does not express an opinion on the merits of the ERA as a matter of policy. It merely enforces a procedural time limit that Congress set when proposing the amendment. Virginia v. Ferriero, 525 F. Supp. 3d 36, 61 (D.D.C. 2021), aff'd, 60 F.4th 704 (D.C. Cir. 2023)

If you want an ERA, let's vote on it. Get 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the states.

[bllsbailey]

‘Child, Listen’: Nancy Mace Challenges Jasmine Crockett to ‘Take It Outside’ After Dem Rep Mocks Her

Representatives Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) got into an incredibly heated exchange during a House Oversight Committee meeting on Tuesday.

The battle of words began during a discussion about civil rights and so-called transgender rights. It ended with an actual proposal to take the matter outside and settle it like women. (Which would be hard, considering anyone with the letter "D" next to their name is 1- Not a biologist, and 2- Therefore unable to define what an actual woman is).

Anyway, Crockett got the fireworks going when she mocked Mace's quest to remove biological men from women's bathrooms and/or sports.

“I can see that somebody’s (Mace's) campaign coffers really are struggling right now,” Crockett chided. “So she’s gonna keep saying trans, trans, trans, so that people will feel threatened.”

With a flip of the hair, the Texas Democrat patronized her colleague, saying, “And child, listen."

That prompted Mace

to summarily blow a gasket.

"I am no child! Do not call me a child!” a peeved Mace shouted. “I am no child. Don’t even start. I am a grown woman. I am 47 years old.”

Crockett attempted to talk over Mace to no avail.

“You will not do that. I am not a child," the GOP congresswoman replied. "If you want to take it outside, we can do that.”

Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) tried to have Mace's comments stricken from the record, but House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) claimed it was merely an offer to settle the discussion over a "cup of coffee, or maybe a beer" outside the halls of Congress.

Jasmine Crockett Tried to Pick a Fight With Tom Homan Only to Get Nuked Back to Reality: 'Not Real Smart'

Jasmine Crockett's Remarks on the Census and Congressional Seats Has Jaws Dropping

Mace and Crockett kept up the war of words on X following the viral exchange, and neither seemed interested in hashing things out over a beer.

Crockett alleged that her Republican colleague had "threatened to physically fight me," while Mace countered, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Also adding fuel to the fire was a statement by Crockett at the hearing in which she claimed fears of biological men in women's locker rooms were a "fantasy" and an instance of someone wanting to "be dramatic."

Mace, who was a victim of sexual assault as a teenager, took exception to the remarks.

This isn't the first time things have grown somewhat contentious between Mace and an activist in over their heads intellectually. Just last month, Capitol police arrested a pro-transgender advocate after he physically assaulted her. 

Mace sustained minor injuries, requiring a brace for her wrist and ice for her arm, but was quick to assert her resilience, stating, “Your tr*ns violence and threats on my life will only make me double down. FAFO.”

33-year-old James McIntyre of Illinois was charged with assaulting a government official.

Nancy Mace Assaulted on Capitol Hill by Transgender Activist

Meanwhile, Crockett has been making a spectacle of herself in Congress, frequently and embarrassingly making radical statements that would make Joy Reid blush.

Just recently, she tried to demean Donald Trump's incoming border czar, Tom Homan, suggesting he has no idea what he's doing when it comes to fixing the border crisis.

That prompted Homan to steamroll her back to reality: "I don’t know who this lady is. Apparently, she’s not real smart."

Is it that obvious?

Earlier this month, at a House Oversight Committee hearing regarding problems in the U.S. Census, Crockett launched into a vile tirade about minorities being used to create seats for white Republicans.

Prior to that, Crockett went viral with this racist screed about the "white man."

At this point, it's obvious Crockett is just going to do precisely what you'd expect from a "Squad" wannabe — run her mouth without anything vaguely intelligent to back up her words. 

Don't take the bait, Nancy. It's not worth it.