The Sedition FullofshitticusI
A Menace to the World
A Rottening in America…The Danger Zone is Everywhere
Langston Hughes, the late great Poet Laureate of Harlem and one of the most important American literary voices of the 20th century, penned a powerful poem that posed the question: “What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raison in the sun? Does it cake over like a syrupy sweet and then run? Does it sag like a heavy load? Or does it explode!” What we witnessed in the deadly assault on the US Capitol by an enraged, racist and untutored white mob, was the result of Don tha Con, a flat footed New York flim flam man, selling them a bogus dream of turning the clock back to a time in which white supremacy reigned supreme. It is a dream totally at odds with political reality. And when the election results, much of which was fueled by black political activism, deferred that dream…they exploded in the nation’s capital!
White trash with money, Devious Dirty Donald beguiled, emboldened, and mobilized white trash across the country, the bamboozled boobs in the boonies, the clueless Trumpanzees to whom he is patron saint , to realize this grand delusion. And the whole world witnessed the US president exhort this mad motley mob to assault the peoples house, drive Congress into hiding fleeing for their lives, and killing five people, including a capitol police officer. The question now facing the American people is: Where do we go from here?
At the conclusion of the Civil War, the world’s first modern war and by far the most destructive, Abraham Lincoln pronounced “With malice toward none, and charity for all, we shall bind up the wounds of the nation,” It was a message that signaled to the southern traitors who had tried their damdest to destroy our constitutional republic, that he intended no retribution. It proved a mistake, for there had been no change of heart among the southern traitors as they rose from the ashes of defeat to create a system that while not chattel slavery, was far from the “Freedom” promised Afro-Americans in the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th 14th and 15th Amendment to the Constitution, buttressed by the seven Civil Rights Bills passed by Congress between 1866 and 1875.
And judging from the parade of confederate battle flags – the ultimate symbol of the treasonous fight to preserve black enslavement in America, which has also become the adopted flag of the neo-Nazi movement in Germany because it is illegal to display any Nazi insignia – inside and outside of the supreme parliament of Republic, many of the descendants of that treasonous southern scum remain unrepentant 175 years after the defeat of the Confederacy on the battlefield. Hence, contrary to the swelling chorus of timid, misguided, and conciliatory voices employing decorous language pregnant with sappy sentimentalism and Christian reconciliation, we cannot simply move on from this tragic episode in our history without a reckoning with the fascist, racist, rebels who wreaked destruction and bloody murder in the great House of the People.
To begin with, before we can seek higher ground, we must face the facts of our history and stop lying about who and what America is! Those who profess shock at the fact that millions of Americans were willing to believe and act upon the transparent lies of Dirty Donald, a man whom professional fact checkers at the Toronto Star and the Washington Post had catalogued thousands of lies emanating from his lips, are exemplars of self-deception. For Americans have been prepared to believe colossal lies about who we are, and what American is, all of their lives. Too much of what has passed for history in our public schools are blatant lies that would shame a nation that values truth. Alas, when truth contradicts the Master Narrative of American civilization lies are revered, propaganda is privileged over history, amoral bullshit artist are afforded center stage while wise and moral men languish in the wings. And this makes certain that we as a people will fulfil the prophetic warning of the Harvard Philosopher George Santayana: ”Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes.”
The almost total ignorance of two critical cautions offered by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to succeeding generations of the new nation they had founded, lay at the very heart of our present crisis. In his farewell address to the nation in 1796, George Washington, the nation’s first President, told some timeless truths and warned us about the dangers of the factionalism created by political parties.
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government…”
I strongly implore the curious reader in search of a fuller enlightenment on our present tragedy, when the foundations of our constitutional democracy are being challenged, to read President Washington’s words carefully, then consider its relevance to this moment of national crisis.
As the first man in world history to willingly give up power, Washington’s expressed views on why he would not stand for office again are especially propitious. For our nation is plagued with a president who is a criminal amoral buffoon, a coward in war and corrupt in economic and political life, who is willing, like Adolph Hitler, to wreck his country if he cannot remain in power. Although Washington, a shameless hypocrite who, like all of the founding fathers save John Adams, kept or defended the keeping of African slaves as chattel – a horrendous crime against humanity – nevertheless concluded that serving for eight years – from two years after the Constitutional Conference in 1789 to 1897 – was enough. None had led Americans in war and peace as he had, yet he told an admiring and grateful nation:
“Friends and Fellow Citizens:
The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.”
Dirty Donald Dimwit shall not compare favorably to this example. The thoughtfulness of President Washington’s Farewell Address, the eloquence of language, and the deeply felt love of the nation all serves to highlight the lowlife, amoral, treasonous, cowardly, inarticulate, treacherous, Nature of Dirty Donald Dimwit!
This is also a propitious occasion to remind the nation of the prescient warning of Thomas Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence, who is widely considered the wisest of the Founding Fathers. A leader of the American version of the 18th century Enlightenment, which privileged reason over religion and physics over metaphysics, in their quest to understand how the world worked, Jefferson was an impassioned advocate of public education and the free press.
He succinctly summed up these sacred passions in two statements: “If I had a choice between a government and no free press, or a free press and no government: I would take the free press and no government.” And “A popular democracy cannot work with an ignorant electorate, because an ignorant electorate will elect and return the worst people to power…There never was a people who were ignorant and free, there never was and there never shall be.”
The profound prudence of these statements, and their self-evident relevance for our times, should be all to obvious to those who are not intellectually handicapped by excess air in their heads, and holes in their souls. Alas, the 74 million Trumpanzees who voted for Dangerous Devious Donald in the past election, even after all his evil deeds have come to light, offers unimpeachable evidence that widespread ignorance and spiritual corruption pose a greater danger to the health, and wealth, and domestic tranquility of Americans than the Covid plague!
Trumpanzees Commit Murder and Mayhem in our House!
See ABC TV Chronological Narrative
A visual timeline on how the attack on Capitol Hill unfolded – ABC News (go.com)
Enraged Trumpanzees Storm the Barricades!
************************
Crazed Trumpanzees Storm the Halls of Congress!
***********************
Terrorists Invade and Trash Speaker Pelosi’s Office
Defiling the Highest Level of the US Government
This Treason Must and Will be Punished!
Dream Girl of the Lunatic Right
Posted in Amy Barrett Ascends to the Supreme Court, Guest Commentators with tags Amy Barrett on Supreme Court on October 27, 2020 by playthellA Religious Fanatic and Right-Wing Ideologue
On Judge Amy Coney Barrett
She is the Federalist Society’s darling, and for excellent reason, she is by far one of the purest Constitutional Originalists I have read in over thirty years. She goes much further than her mentor Scalia ever did in his interpretations. She absolutely terrifies me, in part because she is bright, pragmatic but even more, she is an absolute ideologue. She hides it well; she dances brilliantly. Still, it is there, and she is the antithesis of everything Ruth Bader Ginsberg stood for.
Yet after hearings that were polite and without real merit, Lindsey Graham, without qualms and without a full committee, pushed her nomination to the full Senate for a vote that will be taken on Monday 26 October 2020. For those of you that are counting, that is six days before the next president’s election. She will be the next Justice unless some GOP members of the Senate find their moral backbone and say NO to Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the spineless enablers and say YES to the American People.
Just to make clear, I am not an Attorney and have no formal legal training. What I have is decades of watching the court in action and reading legal briefs and scholarship. It is an interest of mine. Do I get it perfectly? Absolutely not. What follows is simply a concerned citizen’s understanding of what I have seen and been able to discover of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
I watched three days of hearings before the Republican-led Senate Judicial Committee. Farcical is the politest term I can come up with. Three days of Republicans, grandstanding, campaigning, and praising her laundry skills, mothering skills and, of course, the brilliance of her legal mind as an afterthought. The comparisons to Ruth Bader Ginsberg were, for most of us, insulting.
She is not now and will never be, except perhaps in the mind of the Federalist Society and those who put her on the highest court in the land, comparable to the Notorious RBG. The truth of the matter, Amy Coney Barrett, is the dream jurist of the Right and a nightmare for the rest of us. Most notable for me and many others were three items she would not commit her ‘brilliant’ legal mind too:
It is difficult to truly explore Judge Barrett’s legal thinking. She has only been on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals since October 2017, three (3) years. Prior to her short time on the bench, she was a Professor of Law; much of her time in this role was spent at Notre Dame, where her published writings are protected. Her limited exposure to litigation was in private practice, with the only notable case being as research assistant on Bush v. Gore. She never argued a case, certainly not in front of the Supreme Court.
I do not want to entirely dismiss her; she clerked on both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. She has earned a great deal of praise for her research, writing and teaching. She is beloved by her students. However, none of this makes her ready for prime time; none of this makes her a worthy inheritor of the seat left vacant by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Consider some of her available publications first; one that stood out for me was Catholic Judges in Capital Cases. While there were no surprises, there was a significant discussion surrounding the loyalty owed to the Church and its teachings. There wasn’t a suggestion that a judge should ever attempt to align the law to the Church, but that their moral behavior must align instead; ultimately, where the two did not or could not recusal would be the answer.
What does this mean in cases she might hear in the future? Either she will ignore her own advice, or she pushes the agenda, we all believe she has. Areas where the Church and the law are out of alignment? Abortion, IVF, several Civil Rights areas, including protections for LGBTQ people (e.g., housing, medical services, marriage, adoption). What is her answer? She has said she can judge without bias; however, I have to ask the question: can she?
The next read for me was actually three separate essays written over five (5) years on the subject of Stare Decisis[1]. The Stare Decisis doctrine directs the court to stand by the established precedent set by the court. The court rarely overturns its own precedent, though it has, in some cases, which signifies it has a new way of looking at a legal issue that has been presented. Based on her writing, though, it seems she is only supportive of courts and judges taking the initiative of ignoring precedent when that precedent is not aligned with the court or the judge’s thinking.
It is frankly a very murky area. An example of a previous court ignoring precedent is Brown v. The Board of Education (1954), where the Separate but Equal doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was ultimately overturned. This is an example where a Super Precedent existed and was challenged. During her hearings before the Judicial Committee, she would not say whether she agreed with the Brown decision.
Judge Barrett says she does not believe Roe v. Wade is a super precedent simply because of the number of challenges. For an interesting read on precedents and super precedents, try this one, which provides an overview of how we should view them[2]. The reality is it would be inconvenient for Judge Barrett to view Roe as a super precedent, just as it would be inconvenient for her to recuse from the ACA battle that will be her first Court case upon being seated on the Bench. She has written more than once regarding the ACA and has even taken issue with a decision by Justice Roberts to uphold the ACA.
In my reading, I found a common theme in Judge Barrett’s view of the courts’ ability to create common law[3], even overruling legislative authority. I was fascinated by this view as it derives from her reading of the Constitution and her ‘Originalist’ stance. While I think we all agree that we have separate but equal branches of government, each with their own powers, now we have a nominee who has been seated on the highest court who apparently believes that court has the ability to legislate from the bench. Although she vigorously denied it during her confirmation hearing. However, her writings suggest otherwise, and in my opinion, she puts us all in great jeopardy.
I have had several discussions about Judge Barrett since her nomination. It seems to me her own words condemn her. We need only listen to what she said in 2016 at the death of Antonin Scalia. I believe those we put on the Supreme Court should not only be legally able, but they should also be morally and ethically sound. Someone said Presidents serve for 4 years, not 3, and certainly not 5. Her nomination extends the current term of Donald J. Trump to five years, even if he is by some terrible chance re-elected her nomination and confirmation should wait until after November 3.
If she had an ounce of moral fiber, she would have withdraw herself until after the elections, as her former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School has advised her to do in a signed open letter. Instead she rejected their advice and is now an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I believe there are some troubling times ahead, as her ascension to the High Court will result in catastrophe for progressive causes.
****************
By: VALENTINELOGAR
Guest Commentators
October 27, 2020
Republished from the blog, OBG_TILTED_TIARA
To hear Amy Barrett Sing the Praises of Justice Scalia, a right-wing screwball, who was an advocate of an “Originalist” approach to interpreting the Constitution. This is a very narrow backward looking view, which distorts the influence of history on the meaning of the Constitution both in 1787 and today. He opined that legal protections against suppression of Afro-Americans’ right to vote amounted to a “racial entitlement” in a decision to strike down Title 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which opened the door for the massive voter suppression actions by Republican controlled state governments that Democrats are fighting in the 2020 election. Barrett worships this man, and says in this interview that she did not think it right to replace him on the court with a liberal because it would tilt the Court creating an imbalance of judicial philosophy. However now that her ascension to the Court is eminent she has changed her views.
To View Amy Barrett’s Interview as a Law Professor See:
To Hear Amy Barret’s Argument that President’s should not appoint judges based on the belief that they will carry out their views rather than objectively interpret the US Constitution. Another view that she has discarded in reference to her own nomination, since Trump has specifically stated on numerous occasions how he expects judges he nominates to rule on specific issues. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjTEdZ81lI
To read some of Judge Barrett’s Opinions Click on links below
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1219801
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/767/
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/450/
[2] chrome-extension://nacjakoppgmdcpemlfnfegmlhipddanj/http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/14-2_Sinclair.pdf
[3] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014661.