The search for a termination to Trump violence

 

If supporter reaction is any indication as to the backing there is for Donald Trump violence, look at what the Daily Beast says happened right after his 34 count guilty verdict...

"Just moments following former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict on 34 counts in his hush money case in New York, WinRed, the Republican fundraising platform, crashed due to an influx of supporters flocking to the site to donate to the presumptive Republican nominee."

And, yes, a dollar donated to Donald Trump is a dollar donated to violence. But, at the same time the left saw fit to also take advantage of the situation...

"However, Trump and his supporters weren’t the only ones who were fundraising off of the verdict. Democrats immediately started sending out emails asking for donations to their campaigns including Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Wiley Nickel (D-NC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."

Meanwhille, a Republican Congress mirrors "Trump’s attacks on justice system and campaign of vengeance after guilty verdict," as reported by the Associated Press. This never ending idolatry for a certified lunatic has brought the GOP to the edge of disaster; their persistence has given them no choice but to continue a path of destruction. His detractors were quickly silenced...

"And those Republicans who expressed doubts about Trump’s innocence or political viability, including his former hawkish national security adviser John Bolton or top-tier Senate candidate Larry Hogan of Maryland, were instantly bullied by the former president’s enforcers and told to 'leave the party.'”

The Guardian reported, "‘No way out without bloodshed’: the right believe the US is under threat and are mobilizing." A sign by one of Trump's minions says, "Load Your Muskets," a call for violence if I ever heard one. Dan Bongino on Truth Social media said, “Pick a side, or YOU are next,” clearly a hostile threat to anyone who doesn't agree with these hypocritic turncoats. More from The Guardian, misinformation is pushing the drive to bring more Republicans into the fold...

"In one viral claim, people say it’s not clear what crimes Trump even committed (the charges for falsifying documents are listed in detail in the indictment, and have been broken down piece by piece by the media). In another, posts claim the judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury before deliberations, which an Associated Press fact check deemed false."

Salon says, "So far, however, Trump's open desire for more mob violence has not amounted to much." But that changed when SCOTUS recently "ruled in favor of a January 6 defendant who argued that he was wrongly convicted under a law criminalizing the obstruction of an official proceeding." It isn't clear yet the extent of this ruling, but it is certainly an opening to put these convicted rioters and murderers back on the street. They tried to take over the government through insurrection, defined as...

An act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Only idiots would deny what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, and apparently that includes the conservative justices of the Supreme Court.

ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults with the following as an egregious example...

"After a Latino gas station attendant in Gainesville, Florida, was suddenly punched in the head by a white man, the victim could be heard on surveillance camera recounting the attacker’s own words: “He said, ‘This is for Trump.'" Charges were filed but the victim stopped pursuing them."

This is not the United States we know. This is not the Republican Party we have known. It is time to terminate the Donald Trump ideology of violence and bring this country back to its traditional self. 

 

Steve Bannon: Almost as scary as Donald Trump?

 

As Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson, tries to persuade the Supreme Court to keep Steve Bannon out of prison, it was reported by CBS News that "Steve Bannon promises retribution if Trump returns to the White House." Here's the scenario...

"House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Fox News' 'Hannity' on Tuesday night that House Republicans were 'working on filing an amicus brief with his appellate work there in his case because the January 6 committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted.'"

Meanwhile, The former Donald Trump strategist claims "his War Room is shaping Republican narratives" adding, "We’re relentless. I will never back off." That has been the blueprint of the Republican Party for years; to keep shoving misinformation at the American public, over and over, until some begin to believe it.  And those poor souls range from the hard-core MAGA supporters to those who are undecided and can be influenced by this meaningless nonsense. Yes, and in my mind this makes Steve Bannon almost as scary as Donald Trump while sharing similar means of dissemination.

CNN reports...

"The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject an effort by former Trump aide Steve Bannon to avoid prison while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction."

 But with a conservative packed court, it's anyone's guess of what they will do. Throughout all this radical right muddling, Bannon confirms the 2020 election denial, the "Big Lie," as he and his cronies describe it, is still "Driving Everything in the GOP," according to The New Republic. And then in The Guardian piece on the 'War Room,' above...

The 70-year-old – once featured on the front of Time magazine with the headlines 'The Great Manipulator” and “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?'– is constantly thinking about the media and shaping narratives. He believes that he wields more influence through his War Room show, which launched in October 2019, than he did working on Trump’s first election campaign or during a brief, ill-fated spell as White House chief strategist."

Now, that's really scary!

TURN LEFT AT THE NEXT CONSERVATIVE... 

,"

Clarence Thomas wants to give domestic abusers guns with gun rights already absurdly exaggerated

 

Aging is something we either look forward to or dread. With today's political crazies, one can only wait...

Clarence and Ginni Thomas

There have already been 8,026 murders by a gun in 2024, 15,299 gun injuries and 245 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive, But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says domestic abusers should own guns, while at the same time SCOTUS was upholding a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers under restraining orders from carrying firearms. Thomas was the only dissenter. Is he trying to persuade the gun industry now to shower him with money and gifts after having done this elsewhere for years and getting away with it?

The New Republic Reports...

"In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Rahimi, Thomas sided with gun rights advocates who opposed the rule, arguing that the other Supreme Court justices had somehow misunderstood a three-year-old opinion he’d written about gun regulation. In this case, however, Thomas only has himself to blame."

Just another case of confusing the issue in the name of gun rights in an attempt to keep the American public on the side of gun nuts. TNR says, "Thomas regularly points to historical tradition when trying to strip away people’s rights," as follows,,,

"Thomas argued that criminal prosecution is a good enough means of keeping guns out of the hands of those who would do harm, insisting that the government could not “strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order—even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.”

It is this absurd assumption that the 2nd Amendment is sacred, which is designed to skew the opinions in this country in order to put more guns on the street. There are almost 400 million out there in America with a total population of 341,784,755, more than one gun per person. Common sense tells you that with the huge capacity of this weaponry, you are bound to have more gun violence, and that is what we have in this country.

Also making sense is the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Almost 60% of mass shootings are domestic violence related, where the perpetrator either killed family or intimate partners, with these statistics from The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence...

"On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men."

Yet, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wants to give domestic abusers guns. And, unrelated to this issue, but indicative of character, Thomas, along with his wife Ginni, is considered one of the most corrupt judges to sit on this high court. Pathetic!

 

A conservative on the Supreme Court we can be proud of...

 

Sandra Day O'Connor was the first female associate justice on the Supreme Court. She was appointed by Pres. Ronald Reagan and served from 1981 to 2006. From Arizona, and known for her dispassionate and meticulously researched opinions, often siding with liberals in election law. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of today is a complete opposite of O'Connor.

The Agony of Stupidity...Should we Make Gerrymandering Illegal?

Republicans know that if voting district lines were drawn as they should be, based on Census population data, results would favor Democrats. That is why years ago, when then DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asleep at the switch, the GOP started to make its move taking over state legislatures allowing them to gerrymander at will. That's where we are today the most recent action..."Justice Dept. sues Texas over redistricting, citing discrimination against Latinos."

This is the first challenge for Pres. Biden in legal action for redistricting; hopefully not the last. Here's the scenario...

"While the Supreme Court has declined to put limits on partisan gerrymandering, it is illegal to draw lines that are unfair to racial and ethnic minorities."

It, apparently, is clear in Texas that the lines have been drawn to put Hispanics at a

disadvantage in voting, which has been taken by A.G. Garland as a move to prevent a particular race from going to the polls. And from all indications, that would be right. This act is just a continuation of Republican moves on the Latino vote...

“This is not the first time Texas has acted to minimize the voting rights of its minority citizens. Decade after decade, Texas has enacted redistricting plans that violate the Voting Rights Act,” the Justice Department said in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western Division of Texas. “In enacting its 2021 Congressional and House plans, the State has again diluted the voting strength of minority Texans.”

Eric Holder is getting involved as the left tires of GOP constant blocking of voting rights legislation, the reason for pressure on Merrick Garland to take action against cases like the move in Texas. Earlier it was required that DOJ had to approve redistricting maps to prevent discrimination. No longer the case, Texas is free to draw the line within the above parameters. Clearly, no one in the Democratic Party trusts Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, rightfully so considering his record.

And here is where we are today...

"But when the Supreme Court eliminated pre-clearance in Shelby, it effectively said that instead of the Justice Department judging whether states are passing discriminatory laws, it will be the courts that decide. Which means it will be the Supreme Court that decides."

Ari Berman: With Extreme Gerrymandering, the Republicans Are Rigging the Next Decade of Elections...

And with a solid conservative majority at SCOTUS, it's pretty obvious the decision we can expect. Joe Biden's commission on expanding the Supreme Court cannot decide currently if this is appropriate. One more decision like voting rights in favor of the GOP should certainly change their minds. Mother Jones says, "Republicans Are Rigging Elections for the Next Decade," covering activity in four states, including Texas...

• In Georgia, Republicans passed a new congressional map on Monday giving their party 64 percent of US House seats in the state...
• In Ohio, Republicans passed a new congressional map on November 18 giving their party at least 80 percent of seats in the state...
• In North Carolina, Republicans passed a new congressional map on November 4 giving their party between 71 to 78 percent of seats in the state...
• In Texas, Republicans passed a new congressional map on October 18 giving their party 65 percent of seats in the state...

Mother Jones adds...

"You get the idea. In state after state under GOP control, Republicans are passing extreme gerrymandered maps that will allow them to pick up enough seats to retake the US House in 2022 and lock-in dominance of state legislatures for the next decade.

This is clearly not democracy when a political party can rig elections, and so far into the future, to be able to insure they win majorities. This is a fight Democrats are losing, and I still say the reason is the left has not been aggressive enough in the past several years. It may be too late, which means simply, democracy will go up in flames in America. 

Is there anyone who didn't think the Supreme Court conservatives weren't biased toward Donald Trump? I think not...

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

We knew we had a one-sided SCOTUS, to the right, of course, some recent decisions pointing to what we might expect in the future. The recent immigrants wealth test apparently did it for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Here's the scenario...

"On Friday evening, by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration’s wealth test for immigrants to take effect in Illinois. All four liberal justices dissented from the order, which changes relatively little: Thanks to the conservative justices’ intervention in January, the wealth test was poised to take effect in 49 states, and Friday’s vote lets the government apply it in the last state left. What’s most remarkable about the decision is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s withering dissent, which calls out—with startling candor—a distressing pattern: The court’s Republican appointees have a clear bias toward the Trump administration."

Here was the article's headline...

"Sonia Sotomayor Just Accused the Supreme Court’s Conservatives of Bias Toward the Trump Administration"

Donald Trump could still do more damage with additional conservative appointees, thus, even more reason to dump the White House maniac. 

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Repeal 2nd Amendment

July 19, 2029: TODAY'S NEWS BYTES  

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Repeal 2nd Amendment

Although deceased former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made it his job to keep a check on American presidents (God, we need him now), he also made a push recently to repeal the 2nd Amendment, Following the Parkland, Florida shooting massacre...

"In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters. That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option."

Of course, no one listened to him then but with the current demise of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), perhaps the gun cowards in Congress, and there are many, will begin to take note.

Read more...

Others think it is time to repeal 2nd Amendment

"Why not try to amend the Second Amendment? "That's from Washington Post columnist, Henry Olsen,  I like the term "try" and completely understand its use in connection with a U. S. Congress loaded with gun nuts scared to death of Wayne LaPierre's NRA. Olsen apparently feels that the complete takeaway of all guns is a mistake, but also bemoans the possibility of Trump adding another conservative justice to SCOTUS, which would take at least ten years to undo.

The writer proposes the following...

"A revised Second Amendment could spell out the relationship between public safety and private rights in more detail. It could give clear safeguards for people with no history of legal trouble or mental instability to continue to own guns while giving more authority to the government to guarantee that only people unlikely to misuse guns would have them."

I might even be able to live with that as long as the right to carry weapons outside the home is banned, along with all assault rifles. At the same time, we would close the gun show loophole, add mandatory background checks and forbid straw purchases. Now that is definitely a neat package.

Read more...

Gun control saves childrens' lives

Stricter gun laws associated with lower death rates in children. Here's a fact from the new study...

"In states where laws requiring universal background checks for gun purchases had been in effect for at least five years, rates of fatal shootings involving young victims were 35% lower than in states without background checks."

 “Approximately seven U.S. children die from firearm-related injuries every day,” said Dr. Monika Goyal, lead author of the study and a researcher at Children’s National Health System and George Washington University in Washington, D.C. About 62% of the 21,241 deaths analyzed were assault-related, and nearly 69% occurred among 18- to 21-year-olds. About 87% of the deaths were in males.

The study warns, parents should think twice about bring guns into the home, and always inquire whether there are guns in the homes where their children go to play. “Take the risk that you may offend someone, rather than putting your child at risk of fatal or irreversible injury,” said Dr. Judy Schaechter, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the study and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

Read more...

What is gerrymandering?...

GERRYMANDERING IS...

"manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class."

In other words, drawing lines that favor your party so the people in a particular voting district will have the numbers to elect the candidate of their choice. It's been done for years, by both parties, but most recently Republican efforts--while Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asleep at the Democratic National Committee--have put the GOP in the enviable position of controlling an important number of voting districts across the country. And this wins elections.

What ThinkProgress calls an "unlikely alliance" in the U.S. Supreme Court could save "Proportional representation" in No. Carolina and Maryland, where cases are pending. During the process of each attorney arguing his or her case, Justice Kavanaugh made an interesting observation. After listening to one of the lawyers with no comment, Kavanaugh suggested...

"that proportional representation provides the courts with a 'judicially manageable' standard to assess whether a particular map is gerrymandered." 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been a constant worry of Progressives and Democrats for his conservative views, the most prevalent being abortion. But he, along with Chief Justice Roberts, could help SCOTUS to arrive at an equitable decision for both sides.

Overturning Citizens Unlimited Must Come From Grass Roots Level

If there is one thing this country can do to balance the political scales in favor of the people it is to overturn the Citizens United ruling made by SCOTUS in 2010. John Roberts and his activist conservative renegades literally put the wealthy and corporations in charge of elections. The flow of dark money has been unlimited and forced some to rethink their candidacy. New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall proposed a Constitutional Amendment in 2014 that was backed by 54 Senators but was stymied by a Republican filibuster that stopped any action.

Enter Bernie Sanders, who had been an advocate for repeal since it was passed into law, who said, “I am extremely disappointed that not one Republican voted today to stop billionaires from buying elections and undermining American democracy." So now it goes back to the grass roots level to gain momentum for the proposed 28th Constitutional Amendment. John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People said, “We have amended the US Constitution before in our nation’s history. Twenty-seven times before. Seven of those times to overturn egregious Supreme Court rulings. For the promise of American democracy, we can and we will do it again.”

IF GAY MARRIAGE LOSES SUPREME COURT LOSES

I am curious if there is any leeway in the process of a SCOTUS decision to hedge on the side of what's right? I mean if Chief Justice John Roberts leaned in favor of the gay issue once before, something must have urged him in that direction. And all of a sudden, even some anti-gun legislation that was blasphemy a few years ago has favored the gun control advocates. Plus, the feds are leaving the marijuana controversy alone for the time being. I mean, if you really want to find a loophole in the Constitution, SCOTUS is the one to do it. Gay rights should be a slam dunk though, based on the 14th Amendment. It clearly forbids "the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or other persons." But, then, there's that Bible thing saying  "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." This is the conservative, radical, religious ideology that has been controlling the right of the Supreme Court for the last few years. It could be that SCOTUS senses the importance of being morally right today, as well as constitutionally correct, and their timing is right if they don't want to start a revolution

JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY COULD DECIDE GUN CONTROL FATE

Adam Winkler...Gunfight

SCOTUS has refused to hear several gun control cases brought by the National Rifle Assn. that would allow broader open and concealed carry. Although D.C. v. Heller only clarified possession in the home, carrying a firearm outside the home is still up for grabs. The Courts have ruled against straw buyers--those purchasing guns for a third party--so what's left is background checks and open and concealed carry outside the home. Congress will probably eventually rule on the background check issue; only an idiot cannot see the benefits of making sure who is buying guns. But SCOTUS must address the 2nd Amendment issue of whether a citizen can lawfully carry a gun outside his or her home for protection.

The key vote could come from Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; he joined the liberals in the straw buyer vote. Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who wrote Gunfight: The Battle Over the Rights to Bear Arms in America, thinks Kennedy is "willing to read gun control laws broadly." Winkler also thinks Kennedy "...insisted that the opinion establishing the individual gun ownership right, District of Columbia v. Heller, contain language that it was not calling into question reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The door is obviously open and Kennedy could be our man.