Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Every time we post an article describing Trump as a potential Hitler (“Astounding similarities: Of whom does this remind you? It’s happening now.”), we are told this is an overreaction and an example of Godwin’s law.

So what does one say when Trump’s  actions really, really, really are Hitler-like?*

Republican Legislators Propose a Series of Bills That Would Criminalize Peaceful Protests by Krisandry Harridan

According to The Intercept, several proposals have been introduced by Republican legislators over the past few weeks specifically targeting protests that block or obstruct traffic—including a North Dakota bill that would allow motorists to hit and kill protesters obstructing the highway “as long as [the] driver does so accidentally.”

“Yes, your honor, it was an accident that I ran down and killed those “Moth*&*#*ing” Black Lives Matter protesters blocking my way.”

Another bill in Minnesota would make obstructing a highway a “gross misdemeanor” punishable by a hefty fine of $3,000 and up to a year in jail, while a separate piece of legislature would make “obstructing the legal process” punishable by an even heftier fine of up to $10,000 plus “imprisonment of not less than 12 months.”

Does walking in protest against an unjust law “obstruct the legal process”?  Should Trump decide? Should racist governors decide?

Similar bills designed to criminalize and discourage protests have also been proposed in Washington, Iowa, and Michigan.

The problem is that when many thousands of people protest, there is nowhere to go but the streets and parks, and fascist governments present “good, logical reasons,” for not wanting streets and parks to be blocked, at the inconvenience of the public.

Of course, the real reason for these laws is not to protect the convenience of the public, but to shut down protests.

As The Intercept points out, this “trend” appears to be a not-so-subtle workaround to the First Amendment.

The first Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The American right is quite selective about which parts of the Constitution should be considered important.

They love the “religion” clause so long as the religion is Christianity. Freedom of religion means we need to ban Muslims, because they are “terrorists,” despite the fact that the vast majority of individual killers and mass murderers in America are Christian.

And of course, there is the ever-present, full-court-press to erect Christmas trees and the Ten Commandments on public land. And let’s not even get into the unConstitutionality of teaching bible-based anti-evolution in public schools.

The only part of the Constitution the right-wing loves better than their interpretation of the religion clause is the 2nd Amendment, which they claim means “Anyone can carry any kind of gun anywhere they wish.”

If only the framers of the Constitution had been smart enough to say it just that simply rather than including the “well-regulated militia” clause, which as any conservative will tell you, is completely meaningless and should be ignored.

Furthermore, the bills seem to be in response to recent protests organized by Black Lives Matter and the activists fighting construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline—which is horrifying for a multitude of reasons, most notably the continued criminalization of black and brown people.

In the minds of conservatives, money seems to be more important than people, so they enact laws to protect money and to punish people. Then, anyone protesting is by definition, a criminal.  

This meets the fundamental definitions of fascism, Hitler-style, by in essence saying, “The government always is right, and anyone who disagrees is a criminal.”

The very specific targeting becomes even more concerning when combined with what Slate reports is a “bracing message implicitly directed to supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement” from the Trump administration.

As the source points out, amongst the “Top Issues” on President Trump’s new White House website is “Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community,” which in part appears to be addressed to protestors of police violence.

“The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration,” the website reads. “The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it…Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter.”

And here is the trick.  If a group of people is protesting peacefully, and the police get angry at the protest and decide to pepper spray, just to teach these people a lesson — and the people begin to run in all directions, across streets and lawns — who exactly is the rioter and violent disrupter?

The police have it in their power to turn any protest into a violent disruption, not only by pepper spraying but by herding, beating, barring, roughly arresting and any number of tactics.

What exactly is a “law and order administration”? Specifically, what does such an administration really do that “regular” administrations have failed to do?

And if shooting and beating unarmed Americans were to cause Trump’s mythical “anti-police atmosphere,” who would be to blame? The unarmed Americans or poorly trained, bigoted police and a policy of denial and buddy-protection?

As many pointed out in response to the low arrest numbers of the Women’s Marches, it’s not only a sign of a successful protest, but also proof of a wholly different method of policing—which is why, now more than ever, it’s so essential just as many people show up for the small, local protests as the big ones.

It’s also a sign that beating blacks and native Americans is acceptable, because those people are “disruptors” and “have it coming,” but beating up women still is frowned upon in America, even by conservatives.

*The Learning Site:

The Enabling Act of March 1933 had given Hitler enormous power over all Germans in Nazi Germany. It is no coincidence that in the same month the first concentration camp was created at Dachau.

Anyone considered to be a threat to Hitler was arrested and issued with a ‘D notice’. The law was ‘adjusted’ to allow the Nazis to effectively determine who was an opponent.

Once labeled as such, arrest was inevitable.

The development and expansion of various police units – both in uniform and un-uniformed – gave the internal security forces a massive level of power. The SD (intelligence agency), in particular, was effective in rounding up opponents, imaginary or not.

The SD cultivated a programm of informants with rewards for the best ones. It is almost certain that any community within Nazi Germany had its informants. His or her word could end with the arrest of someone. Children indoctrinated by a Nazi education programm were also encouraged to inform their teachers if their parents made disparaging comments about Hitler.

Speaking of being punished for disparaging remarks:

Donald Trump says he wants libel laws more like the UK’s by Tom Kludt

“Well in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong.Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.

As is normal with Trump, the facts are different from what he claims. They are what Kellyanne Conway calls “Alternative facts”:

In fact, Trump was essentially describing the legal standard that already prevails in U.S. defamation law. If a media organization publishes or broadcasts something untrue about a public figure that harms that person’s reputation, and does so deliberately, they can be sued.

British law puts the onus on the defendant to prove that the statement at issue was true; in the U.S., the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Once Germany was a beautiful, proud, prosperous nation, a home to great scientists and artists — just like America.

Hitler changed Germany to a land of hatred, where people were despised for their religion or political leanings, and children even extended the hatred to their parents.

Under Trump, America too is being changed into a land of hatred. The Emails and comments I receive now are far more vicious and insane than any in the past.

Every demeaning comment Trump makes, every angry tweet, every anti-press complaint, every anti-progressive, anti-minority law he encourages represents one more chip off the face of the Statue of Liberty.

The Germans could not believe it could happen to them.  They sneered at the warnings . . . . until it was too late.

We object to Trump, not because he is a strongman, but because he is weak man.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THE LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY