Here is your advance look at tomorrow’s headlines.
SUCKERS WANTED
(Not possible? That’s what Germany, Italy, and Cuba thought. Who will stop him?)
Trump trade adviser says White House is ‘moving forward under the assumption there will be a 2nd Trump term’, by Kathryn Krawczyk, The Week, November 13, 2020
White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro sees no reality in the very real election of President-elect Joe Biden.
In a Friday interview with Fox Business, Navarro once again relayed President Trump and his supporters’ refusal to accept the results of last week’s election.
“We’re moving forward here at the White House under the assumption that there will be a second Trump term,” Navarro said.
He then outlined how the Trump campaign and the White House “seek verifiable ballots” and “an investigation into what are growing numbers of allegations of fraud” in the election, and declared anyone who believes Biden won to be operating under “an immaculate deception.”
The preparations for a coup, continue. The GOP remains silent.
This is the President’s speech you so desperately wish to hear:
Ladies and gentlemen of Congress and the Supreme Court, why did you come here? Most of us could have done better financially in the private sector, but you chose to come here. Why?
Do you remember when you first decided to enter public service? How idealistic you were. You felt you could, in some way, improve the lives of the people.
You could have been lawyers or doctors, or business leaders, and most of you could have risen to the tops of your professions. Instead, you willingly sacrificed riches to become senators, representatives, and judges. You entered the uncertain world of politics.
Did you do it for the glory? Did you do it for power? Did you do it to get a better table in a restaurant?
No, you — we — did it for the morals. We understood that the fundamental purpose of government is to improve the lives of the people.
People do not form governments for our aggrandizement. The people did not send us here and pay our salaries so we can stand on a dais and bask in the warmth of their cheering. The people did not send us here to defeat the other party in never-ending, useless wars.
The people sent you here — and you came here — to make their lives better. The people sent you here to answer just three questions.
What can I do for the people?
What can I do for America?
What can I do for the world?
Do you remember those optimistic days? How exciting they were. How good it felt to believe that in some small — or perhaps not so small — way, you could make a positive difference. Your life could have a special meaning beyond just your coming and your leaving — beyond merely dust to dust.
Your legacy could be not that you defeated the other side, but that you made America and the world a better place for those less powerful than you. You believed in the words on the Statue of Liberty:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Yes, we were the golden door. The shining city on a hill. America.
And then you came to Washington. And the jaded ones told you to throw away your idealism. Throw away your compassion. Throw away your morals. They told you — they told all of us — our life was to be a tiny, obedient cog in a vast machine. They told us to answer just three questions:
What is best for the President? What is best for my party? What is best for me?
And so, like those tiny, obedient cogs in the vast machine, we now march in lockstep.
Is that why you came here — to be just a reliable, obedient vote?
Today, the nation has been divided by lies and hatred. Every day some new corruption, some new outrage, some new anger. Even our precious election is riven by lies and threats and anger.
Look back now at what we have lost. Our beautiful dream, our American dream.
Does it bother you, as it bothers me, that almost every question put before Congress is answered in exactly the same way, with a hundred percent — or near a hundred percent — of the right answering one, and a hundred percent of the left answering the other way, because it is best for me to vote with the party.
Why are we all so predictable? Can it even be possible that all — ALL — your beliefs and morals are identical to those of the other two hundred people of your party — identical on all questions — and opposing the beliefs of those in the other party?
Is it even possible, that on every question coming before Congress, you are exactly the same as the man or woman sitting next to you, on your side of the aisle?
Is that why you came here? To be nothing more than a rubber stamp for or against? Is that why you gave up an alternative future?
Think back now: When was the turning point in your life? When did what’s best for the people fall out of consideration? When did you stop caring about people and care only about politics?
And if you’re a judge, I ask you this question: When did the law become more important than the people?
When did you lose your compassion for those less fortunate than you? Have you become so cold and heartless that you care more about legal minutia than about the actual fact of human suffering? When did the turn of abstruce phrase become more important than the reality of the human condition? When did clever rejoinder become more important than a child’s life?
And really, ladies and gentlemen, why are you so predictably right-wing or left-wing? How about “people-wing”?
I have been here for many years. I have been as guilty as any of you in losing my way in the endless labyrinth of uncaring big government. I regret those wasted years, when I focused on giving the wrong answers to the wrong questions, simply to go along.
I could have been so much better. I could have done so much more for the people. And though I can’t go back, I can change direction, and try to remember the idealism that first brought me here.
We, few, sitting in this room, control the levers of power. America is the most powerful — financially and militarily — the most powerful nation in history. We truly have the power to make the earth a better place for all humanity, and we certainly, easily have the power to make America a better place for all Americans.
Shall we squander what little time we are given in this world? Shall we squander our power on internecine wars? Is that why you have given so much of your lives, day after day, to win one battle, then to lose the next? Will defeating your neighbor yield a better result than cooperating with, or helping, your neighbor?
Is morality naive?
At one time, the world looked to America for moral leadership. That can be true again. In your heart and your mind, you know right from wrong. You know truth from lies. You know good from bad. You know generosity from selfishness. You know compassion from cruelty. You know love from hatred.
You know these things and the world looks to you and the world knows you know. And the world will follow your lead.
Sometimes, in the short run, evil wins. But evil has no staying power in the hearts of humanity. Evil skulks fearfully in darkness and denial. Righteousness opens its arms to the sunshine of joy and self-respect.
How will we few people in this room be remembered? Will we lie and make excuses. Will we rationalize? Or, will you look back in satisfaction at knowing you have done the right thing for humanity? Will you be proud of the good you have accomplished? What will be the meaning of your life?
Today we begin our destiny. We can step back from cold, blind politics.
We can do this. Hand in hand, working together we can do this.
We can answer the questions we have been given the power to answer:
What can I do for the people? What can I do for America? What can I do for the world?
We are not just Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans. We are not just Americans, we are human beings.
We can make the world a better place, for ourselves, for our children, and for all the children yet to be born.
Donald John Trump | Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” George Sanayana, as stated in his work, The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense.
The FBI has arrested 14 right-wing, gun-toting, pseudo-patriots who are alleged to have been plotting to kidnap and, perhaps, execute Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. President Donald Trump’s response to this chilling example of domestic terrorism has been to attack and denigrate Whitmer.
Trump has demolished all sorts of presidential norms, but this violation of decency and dereliction of duty may be the most vile.
Can you imagine any other president in our history leaning in on the side of thugs who have threatened dire harm to an elected official who provoked their ire simply because she asked them to wear masks to prevent the spread of a pandemic?
This week at a campaign rally in Michigan, Trump slammed Whitmer again. In response, the crowd began to chant, “Lock her up! Lock her up!”
Trump let the chant roll on as he stood at the podium looking grim. Finally, he said, “Lock ’em all up.”
Some Trump apologists will say he was just having fun, just joking.
But that argument is belied, not only by the president’s angry demeanor but by his continuing quest to see his political enemies thrown into prison.
In recent days, Trump has been very upset with his usually sycophantic attorney general, Bill Barr, because Barr has resisted prosecuting Joe Biden based on a bogus, Russian-inspired fairy tale brought home by the president’s loony lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
In his heart, Trump is a proto-Mussolini who would happily jail anyone who dares oppose him, including all the journalists he calls “enemies of the people.”
At least for now, he can only dream about having such power.
The truly disturbing thing is that far too many of the people cheering for him at his rallies seem eager to let Trump follow his dark heart.
Italians thought, “It can’t happen here.” Germans thought the same. Then came the 50+ million deaths of WWII.
Yet, today, as votes still are being counted, America stands on the precipice. A few votes in one direction could send this nation tumbling down to the horrors of Trump’s fascism, from which not only America, but the whole world will have difficulty recovering.
Yes, yes, I know. I am being overly dramatic and concerned.
Tell that to Germany and to Italy (and to China, and to Russia, and to North Korea, and to a dozen African and South American nations).
This is going to drag on now. There will be challenges and counter-challenges, lawsuits and recounts. Maybe protests, maybe violence. It’s been almost 24 hours since the polls closed and it’s uncertain when we’ll know for sure who will occupy the White House on Jan. 20.
But this much is clear: On one level, Donald Trump has already won. He’s won because he has sown exactly the kind of discord he thrives on.
He’s won because he’s divided us still further in ways that will stay with us long after he has left office. He’s turned adversaries into enemies, undermined our democratic institutions and convinced us we’re cheating one another.
At the moment, he is continuing to undermine the electoral system itself with unsubstantiated charges of voter fraud. When there’s chaos and confusion, he flourishes.
Even if Joe Biden ultimately becomes president — and he appears as I write this to have a pretty strong path to 270 electoral votes — millions and millions of people will have again pulled the lever for the incumbent.
For the United States to have elected Donald Trump once can perhaps be written off as an aberration, a dreadful mistake. Maybe voters in 2016 — a more innocent time! — thought he wouldn’t really follow through with his irresponsible campaign promises, or that he’d be sobered by the awesome responsibilities of the office or held in check by others.
But for tens of millions of people to double down and vote for him again in 2020 is entirely different. It is an assertion by those voters that, yes, this is who we really are — and what the United States has become over the last four years is really what we want it to be. Their votes send a message to the world that this bizarre and untrustworthy man didn’t weasel his way into the most powerful job in the world by fooling the great American people. Rather, he was — and remains — their conscious choice.
Many Trump supporters say they see his character flaws but back him anyway because they trust him on the economy or they like his irreverent style or they’ve been persuaded that Joe Biden is senile.
But the message they send when they vote for him the second time is that they’re OK with self-dealing, bullying and lying. Intentionally or not, they’re giving a big thumbs-up to the way he talks about women, his refusal to denounce Q-Anon, the government dollars flowing into his hotels, his political chicanery in Ukraine, his racial dog whistles.
As I said, it can’t happen here, except for one thing:
Supreme Court Justices often justify their decisions by claiming to be “originalists,” or “textualists,” and no one wishes to be considered “activist.’
The reason: They can hide behind the framers of the Constitution in a “Don’t-blame-me. The-law-forces-my-opinion. If-you-don’t-like-the-law,-change-it” exercise.
Justices are people. They have beliefs and prejudices that have built up over many years. Based on those beliefs and prejudices, they want cases to go a certain way.
You may think that in making a decision, a justice first researches the Constitution for guidance, and then refreshes with a comb-through of previous decisions. finally to amalgamate it all into a decision.
The reality seems quite the opposite.
Based on the decisions themselves, it seems clear that the decision usually comes first, and then the research is done to justify it.
How else could there be predictably “right-wing” and “left-wing” justices? They all read the same Constitution. They all have the same precedents before them. They all know the same law.
Yet most of the time, they vote along “party” lines. That is why the GOP was in such a hurry to nominate Amy Coney Barrett. Barring a rare surprise, they know how she will rule.
Unless you believe it is all coincidence, there is only one way in which you repeatedly see the same justices making the same “right” or “left” decisions: Their minds are made up beforehand, and then they search for justification.
And that is why “originalism” and “textualism” are monstrous lies. In truth, all justices are activists.
This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.
Originalism, a term that was adopted in the 1980s, is related to:
TEXTUALISM:
Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.
ACTIVISM:
Making decisions based on personal political views or considerations rather than on the law as written or intended. This is closely related to the concept of the Living Constitution.
To the right-wing, “activist” is what left-leaning justices are called, when their decisions disagree with the right-wing. In truth, all justices, left and right, are activists.
The ostensible, though often subtle, difference between originalism and textualism is the former looks for the intent of the authors and the latter is more strict in following the actual meaning of the words. The real difference comes up when a Justice shifts between the two, in trying to justify a position.
All Justices are originalist and textualist and activist, with the degree depending on the subject.
The conclusion: Originalism/Textualism does not really exist. It is an excuse for a decision by a Justice who has his/her mind locked by political or emotional biases.
The “king,” though not the originator of the term “originalism” was Antonin Scalia, who proudly defended originalism this way:
“Non-originalists must agonize over what the modern Constitution ought to mean with regard to (various) subjects,” and then agonize over the very same questions five or 10 years later, because times change.”
Because, for instance, abortion and LGBTQ rights weren’t specifically granted in the Constitution they, in Scalia’s opinion, were not rights. Being an originalist made his job easier, he said.
In short, Scalia boasted about how not having to agonize about decisions as times changemakes his job easier, as though the ease of his workload was more important than making decisions appropriate to changing circumstances. And this lazy concept is widely respected?
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are today’s self-proclaimed originalists.
Proudly “originalist” Justice Neil Gorsuch said:
“A good originalist judge will not hesitate to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution’s original meaning, regardless of contemporary political consequences. Whether that means . . . prohibiting the government from slapping a GPS tracking device on the underside of your car without a warrant (the Fourth Amendment) . . . “
” . . . often enough it may be tempting for a judge to do what he thinks best for society in the moment, to bend the law a little to an end he desires, to trade just a bit of judicial integrity for political expediency.”
Whoa, “originalist” Justice Gorsuch. Where does the Constitution mention GPS tracking devices, or for that matter, cars? Aren’t you bending the law a little for political expediency? Yes, but this is different, right? No, wrong.
How does a Fourth Amendment prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures” textually prohibit GPS tracking devices? Is a GPS a “search”? Is a GPS a “seizure”? Is it “unreasonable”? Where are these definitions in the Constitution?
Is observing someone by using binoculars, or standing close and overhearing, or merely following someone, an unreasonable search or a seizure? And aren’t you liable to commit the “crime” of “agonizing over the very same questions five or 10 years later, because times change” every time a new observation device is invented?
Justice Amy Comey Barrett: “[Originalism] means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time. And it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”
But if she is interpreting it “as text,” where is the interpretation?
Soon she will rule on hot button items like the Affordable Care Act and abortion. One wonders on what specific text in the Constitution she will rely.
The classic example of how the “isms” may be used and twisted come with the 2nd Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“Well-regulated”: Why did the framers say not just “regulated,” but “well-regulated”? Clearly, they recognized the real danger inherent in people keeping and bearing deadly Arms, but felt this danger was acceptable for the security of America, so long as it was part of a well-regulated Militia, and not solely composed of gun-nuts.
“Militia”: Defined as a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. The purpose of the people keeping and bearing arms is not for hunting, target shooting, or for self-protection. The purpose is to be ready on a moment’s notice, to supplement the regular army.
“Keeping and bearing”: As part of a well-regulated Militia, the people can store and carry Arms.
“Arms”: Here’s where the originalists and textualists really have to twist and turn, because they have no idea what this term means. Currently, it seems to include modern weapons that did not exist when the Constitution was written, which certainly should disqualify them from textualism and arguably from originalism.
I put my impartial finger on the law. It’s not up to me to infuse my own policy views into it.
But it gets even worse. There seems to be some tacit agreement that “Arms” includes semi-automatic weapons, but does not include automatic rifles. (You can get one, but the process is difficult, slow, and expensive, and you have to have a perfectly clean record.)
Where is that distinction anywhere in the Constitution? An honest reading by an originalist or a textualist would hold that neither intent nor text could include weapons that were not even conceived of by the framers, and certainly not by any difference between semi-automatic and automatic.
Making such a distinction would be considered activist, unless it’s made by a right-wing justice, in which case its originalist — somehow.
Will Amy Comey Barrett understand the 2nd Amendment to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it — well-regulated militia, flintlock pistols and all?
Don’t bet on it.
The most hilarious distinction was made by the spiritual leader of originalism, Antonin Scalia, who somehow was able to justify eliminating all first thirteen words of the Second Amendment, while still not being considered “activist.”
Shall we assume his being not only a right-winger but, like his grandfather, an avid hunter — a member of the International Order of St. Hubertus, a “secretive society of elite hunters,” — had nothing to do with his decision?
In summary:
Depending on the subject, there are no originalist justices. There are no textualists. All justices are activists, some more so than others. Don’t believe any justice who says otherwise.
SUCKERS WANTED
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 