W.J. Astore
Fifty years ago, a remarkable thing happened in America. A pro-peace candidate, George McGovern, won the nomination for one of America’s two major political parties. Of course, McGovern went on to lose big time to Richard Nixon in the fall, but his rise within the Democratic Party, much of it driven by grassroots activism, still inspires hope.
McGovern was right in 1972 in his justly famous “Come home, America” speech after he gained the nomination. It’s time to end overseas wars and military adventurism and heal our divisions here at home. The big problem, of course, is that so many powerful elements within the U.S. thrive best when the masses are kept busy fighting each other.
A friend posted this image on Facebook, which sums up much of America’s predicament today:
To borrow from my father once again, in America the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. And the rich have neither sympathy nor use for the poor. Unless by “use” you mean soldiers for empire, cleaners for mansions, and so on.
What is to be done? People ask me this a lot, expecting me to have a magical solution. I say fight the best you can, using your skills and the tools at your disposal. But make sure you’re fighting the right people and forces. Don’t fight your neighbors within the terrarium. Fight the powerful who are preventing change by keeping us divided, distracted, and downtrodden.
“Long live the fighters!” as they cried in “Dune.”
Bracing Views 
Not sure fighting a class war is any better than fighting a culture war. I would rather focus on the policies themselves.
LikeLike
I think the salient point is that the mass of the populace is already kept distracted, busy, confused and divided; by a class war that has been conducted deliberately and quite successfully against them, and over a very long period. Its primary tactics are:
a) the control of both electoral and policy politics, using the power of concentrated capital in furtherance of both power and further concentration of capital;
b) the concomitant limiting of power and wealth by the masses and resulting insecurities that keep people fearful, focused on their own survival and suspicious of ‘others’ and less likely to cooperate (i.e. tribalism); and
c) the use of cultural wedges (the culture wars) to keep them that way.
In other words, there already is a class war; but the victims are mostly unaware that it is being perpetrated because the major strategies employed are the maintenance of economic duress and ignorance, that both feed the ‘divide and conquer’ stratagem.
The only way to overcome these dysfunctions is to help the victims of this scheme to recognize that in fact their only real enemies are those who conspire to keep them stupid, fearful and too distracted or too otherwise busy to do anything about it. This is what I think Lt. Col. Astore is writing about here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Class war” is such a Marxist term. Stalin employed it in his fight against the kulaks, a term that came to include peasants who owned their own small farms (8 acres or more). And after all the kulaks were dead or sent to the gulag Stalin had even more power, which he used to kill even more people. Modern politicians rail against the “rich” for the same reason. To get more power for themselves.
LikeLike
Yes. I always like what Warren Buffett said: Of course there’s a class war — and my class is winning.
He’s right.
LikeLiked by 4 people
At least he is honest. How many members of the Ruling Political Class are prepared to be so forthright?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Roger, Roger!
What you write here are the same ideas I see reading the Gospels, but translated into secular terms easier to understand.
Christ Alpha in Jesus in the Year of The Lord 33, had an ongoing guerrilla type struggle with the Religious ESTABLISHMENT and they thought they silenced him once and for all.
In this Year of The Lord 2022, Christ Omega sees the struggle continues, and may be heading for the Climax.
LikeLike
That’s interesting that You ask the same question Lenin did one hundred twenty years ago, Colonel: “What is to be done?”
To begin to answer that question, let’s start with the results of that 1972 election, which, as You said, McGovern lost “big time”: Nixon got 46,740,323520 popular votes and 520 electoral votes, to McGovern’s 28,901,598 and 17.
Why do You think that happened? What forces and factors were working against all that “grass roots activism” that was calling for an end to that War that gave Nixon that margin of victory? And why did they succeed so overwhelmingly? Where DID that “Silent Majority” come from?
And are those same forces and factors that worked against the “Peace candidate” so effectively in 1972 still successfully at work today? If they are, how have they changed? And if they aren’t, what forces and factors have replaced them?
McGovern may have been “right” in 1972, but apparently a distinct majority of voting Americans that year thought and voted otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction: “Nixon got 46,740,323 popular votes and 520 electoral votes.”
LikeLike
Well, they crucified Christ too.
LikeLike
The same “They” crushed McGovern as crucified Christ? Interesting. i never quite looked at it in quite that way.
LikeLike
Yes, the same “they.” The powerful who don’t want change. Who don’t want to help the poor, heal the sick, aid the outcast. The ones who don’t want to share — anything. Especially money and power. They are gods unto themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What percentage of those almost 47 million Americans in 1972 who voted for Nixon didn’t want “change,” Colonel? Or didn’t want to “help the poor, sick, and outcast”?
And what percentage of those 47 million were interested only in sharing money and power among themselves?
Those “gods,” as You call them, could only get away with what they did then ~ and were doing long before 1972, and have been doing ever since Nixon/McGovern ~ because the American People have LET them be successful at what they have done, are doing, and will continue to do until stopped. [And they have doing all that far more efficiently, effectively, and efficaciously than Nixon and his owners and operators could ever even imagine, let alone hope for.]
That is the only reason those “gods” have been ~ and still are ~ so successful. So the question arises: WHY have the American People let those “gods” rule?
Which will ultimately bring us back to Your and Lenin’s original Question, doesn’t it?
What IS to be done? And HOW is it to be done by WHO?
LikeLike
Again, what is the point of these argumentative questions? Why don’t you take firm positions that we can then discuss. Tell us what is to be done, how, and by who.
This shouldn’t be an exercise in demanding answers to your questions. Take a stand! Or admit you don’t know what is to be done, how, and by who.
LikeLiked by 2 people
i’m sorry You find them “argumentative,” Colonel. i was hoping they’d be taken as at least “proto-Socratic,” but obviously they haven’t been.
And i haven’t been “demanding answers.” i’ve just been trying to see if anybody HAS any answers other than “Put our candidates and our worldview, paradigms, platforms, and promises in charge of the government, and everything will be fine. All Your problems will be solved. Trust us.”
And i have taken a stand and addressed what i believe to be THE PROBLEM confronting America [and the entire Planet] today; and have stated it several times on Bracing Views:
And any “Regime Change” in DC at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue [or any other capital city on the Planet] does not change that one bit.
In the United States, just like Slavery, the opportunities for SPECIAL INTEREST CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT WERE BUILT INTO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, and those folks have seldom missed an opportunity to take full advantage of the possibilities presented. The Anti-Federalists warned us about all this back then, but to no avail.
Unless and until that PROBLEM is explored, addressed, acknowledged, accepted, and then actually acted upon, nothing is going to change. [EMPHASES added.]
LikeLike
Not sure how that happened that the lead paragraph got presented in that form. Another Mystery of Life in the world of WordPress, eh?
LikeLike
Got it. The problem is an inherent flaw built into the original Constitution.
The solution is to fix that flaw, which would require a Constitutional convention or a revolution (bloody or bloodless) that leads to an overthrow of that Constitution and the design of a new one without that flaw.
Major, fundamental, reforms, to the most basic institutions of our government, which would neutralize special interests (the “tyranny of the minority,” perhaps).
If I may ask one question of my own: How is this to be achieved?
LikeLiked by 2 people
i have attempted 5 times to post a response to Your question, Colonel, with no success. Apparently WordPress doesn’t like what i have to say, eh?
LikeLike
Here’s what JG Moebus has been trying to post:
How to “fix the flaw” in the Constitution and eliminate that tyranny of the micro-minority?
Given that a ”revolution” would entail overthrowing the government of the United States and seizing power in Washington, there is no way that one in America today would be bloodless. Or would ever succeed. To overthrow this government would require, at a minimum, the DoD, CIA, and, particularly, the Federal Reserve.
re: a Constitutional Convention: The folks at “Convention of States” have been working for an Article V Constitutional Convention since 2013, with calls for a Convention to make proposals that “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”
Once two-thirds (34) of the States pass COS’ Resolution, the Convention will be called. [Or is supposed to be. It will be the folks in Swampland who have to actually authorize it.]
And on March 9, 2022, South Carolina became the 19th State to formally call for that Convention.
To see a map of the status of the COS campaign, and beyond, see https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application. It’s quite interesting to compare that map with maps showing the status of Abortions and Gun Control in America.
And to see a comprehensive survey of all the issues at stake and concerns raised by a Convention, see this article on South Carolina’s endorsement: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-south-carolina-constitutions-election-2020-columbia-f5fffc14719b76e6f4c8608150170baa .
As the AP piece points out: One of the biggest questions about a Constitutional Convention is exactly WHO will represent the individual States at the Convention, and How and by Whom will they be chosen to be those Representatives?
A third option is Secession, whereby the intent is not to overthrow the government and seize power in Washington, but to eliminate Washington, DC as a “higher” level of government above the State and Local levels.
Which is exactly what Americans did with regard to England’s Rule in the Colonies back in 1776 and beyond. In that case, the Colonists eliminated the British Crown as that “higher” government. And it is exactly what the Confederacy did in their War of Secession 160+ years ago.
LikeLike
A Convention represents the most pacific option, but at the moment it seems very unlikely given the straitjacket the American uniparty (Dems/Repubs) has on our political system.
Secession would represent the end of these “united” states; it seems unlikely as well, but you never know.
As we’ve discussed, the Soviet empire collapsed in the span of just a few years in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Who is to say that something similar won’t happen to the U.S. empire? How much debt can we truly support? How much dissension? How many wars? How extreme of a gap between the richest few and poorest many before something has to give?
If history teaches us one thing, it’s that events are often unpredictable and can spiral quickly out of control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes, Colonel ~ as history has also taught us ~ events that seem to be spiraling “out of control” are in fact being very closely monitored and controlled by those with government power with the desire, intent, resources, and abilities to make Shit Happen.
How’d Yossarian put it? “They can do anything we can’t stop them from doing.”
And i’ve asked that same question several times on this forum, Colonel. Specifically:
Given that the United States is:
a Bankrupt Debtor State;
an Imperialist Warfare State;
a Redistributionist Welfare State;
a Secrecy/Surveillance/Security/proto-Police State;
an Oligarchic/Plutocratic Deep State;
a Failing or at best Flailing State;
an Overshoot State;
And, perhaps most importantly,
a People and Nation no longer merely “divided,” but fractured ~ even to the point of disintegration ~ in ways not seen in more than 160 years, since the eve of the First American Civil War….
Given all that, the Question is: Will the United States survive to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026?
At this point, a more pressing Question is: Will the United States survive to have its Midterm election on November 8, 2022?
LikeLike
I, too, see a Covention as unlikely, unless the upheaval in the U.S. continues to spiral upward, AND powerful interests would publicize and push for such a gathering.
As the linked AP article notes, some objections to the idea are based on the current uncertainty as to how delegates would be chosen. Unless the selection would somehow move outside the restricted, gerrymandered process we now have, we’d be back to square one. Or worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The simple/honest answer here, Jeff, is that we don’t know.
Even Yoda, the Jedi Master, couldn’t clearly see the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m channeling my inner Lenin. Or Lennon? 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Heh. Roger That.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you asked me seven questions in this comment. Again, what is the point of this? I find it combative and annoying, to be honest.
And I’m annoyed because you already have the answers to these questions in your own head. And if I wanted to address them, fairly and seriously, I’d almost have to write a book to address all the “forces and factors” in play here.
I find comments like this both off-putting and tiresome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Colonel. There will be no more off-putting and tiresome comments. i promise.
LikeLike
It’s also interesting that You posted Your referenced article “Divided, Distracted, Downtrodden: The Social and Political Reality in America Today” back in late June of 2015: Just about the time that the whole phenomenon of Trump, Trumpatismo, and Trumpatistas began to emerge on the stage of America’s political theatre.
Your closing paragraph then of “We can’t wait for the politicians…the way democracy is supposed to work” sounds very close to what Trump and his Followers were beginning to think and say, doesn’t it?
And a year and a half later, The Age of Trump and the Reign pf POTUS Maxximmuss XLV had begun.
LikeLike
I’m a prophet without honor on my own blog. 🙂
In all honesty, I was first tipped off to the Trump phenomenon by a reader who sent me an email in July 2015. So on 7/13/15 I wrote this piece suggesting that Trump could conceivably win in 2016. I’ll paste the text here:
Donald Trump and American Fascism?
W.J. Astore
A reader wrote to me this morning about Donald Trump and American fascism. Is Trump, with his anti-immigrant posturing and his generally bombastic demeanor, tapping into a “fascist spring” in America?
The question seems unduly alarming as well as absurd. But let’s pause for a moment. I recently saw on TV the results of a poll in which Americans were asked, “Which presidential candidate would best revive the American economy?” The clear winner: Donald Trump. Yes, maybe it’s just name recognition or an association of Trump’s name with money-making, but the result was nevertheless disturbing.
Here’s the thing: It’s easy to view Trump as a joke. His bad hair. His vulgar manner. His obvious bombast.
But guess who else was dismissed as a joke? Adolf Hitler.
Before he got his grip on power, many in Germany thought that Hitler was a joke: bad haircut, ill-fitting clothes, vulgar accent. Hitler was known as the “Bohemian Corporal,” a euphemism which in colloquial American English translates to “Hillbilly Grunt.” As a result, “good” Germans just couldn’t take Hitler that seriously. They underestimated him — and when they tried to move against him, it was far too late.
Of course, I’m not saying that Trump is some kind of Hitler. What I am saying is that popular demagogues are easy to make fun of — easy, that is, until they gain power.
Sinclair Lewis had it right: It Can Happen Here. All it takes is a megalomaniacal and messianic leader, a crisis to make the people desperate (such as the Great Depression that facilitated Hitler’s rise), various elites who cynically and opportunistically throw their support behind the “great leader,” and enough of the rest of us who choose, out of fear or indifference or ignorance, to do nothing.
Update (8/23/15): The Donald is still gaining in the polls, notes the New York Times, despite (or rather because of) the outrageous things he says:
In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting.
One thing is certain: Trump draws support from people who are simply tired of traditional candidates like Jeb Bush. But does Trump stand for anything other than himself? He’s notably vague on the issues, perhaps learning from the Obama Campaign in 2008 that it’s far better to sell vague slogans like “hope” and “change” to the American people. Trump’s slogan is “Make America Great Again!” — and that may be all that many Americans want to hear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Donald drew his support from lots more folks than just those fed up with the likes of Jeb Bush, Colonel. Just like Sanders drew support from lots of people who were fed up with a choice limited to the likes of The Hillary.
Trump drew most of his support from people who were also increasingly fed up with the Bullshit being passed off as government and governance in Swampland: the Forever War for one thing, and, particularly, the fallout from the 2008 financial “¢risi$” with its bailouts and “rescues” for the connected few, and the residual stagnation of wages and decreases in standards of living and quality of life for the disconnected many: Red State or Blue State, Democrat, Independent, or Republican. Sort of like Sanders’ support, as well.
That’s why Trump got close to 63 million votes in 2016: 46.1% of the votes cast to Clinton’s mere 48.2%. And that’s why Clinton lost those States that everybody just knew were hers for the taking, and thus the Electoral vote.
Apparently, the plurality of American voters did not want either Trump or Clinton, eh?
LikeLike
You have a strange habit of lecturing me, Jeff. I cite an article I wrote in July & August 2015, and you think you have to tell me that Trump’s appeal was broad, based on election results more than a year removed from my article?
What’s the point of your argumentative approach? Or are you just trying to score points?
LikeLiked by 2 people
i’ve tried to answer Your question about my point in my comments above, Colonel.
Scoring points, eh? Heh. What game is that where You get points for asking Questions instead of providing Answers?
LikeLike
I’m like Sarah Palin — I have little patience for “gotcha” questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heh. Well, i hope for Your sake, Colonel, that that is the only attribute of Ms Palin’s that You share.
Up here in Alaska, the word is “The Bitch Is Back!!!” with her almost guaranteed being sent to Swampland in the upcoming Special Election to replace the finally recently-dead Congressman Don Young, who first went to Congress the same year Biden first got there from Delaware back in 1973. And stayed there ever since, just like Biden.
LikeLike
Guess what Lt.Col. Its 2022 and still….
In poll after poll Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting.
Why? Because the do-nothing Democratic party sucks. Its leaders morons.
Jimmy Dore for President 2024
LikeLiked by 3 people
They are digging a grave for themselves.” Joe Rogan
LikeLike
The powerful who are preventing change by keeping us divided, distracted, and downtrodden. – that would be the Democrats. They are masters at it!
LikeLike
I can’t agree there, Dennis. I’d point to the two most recent examples, as we’ve discussed here. Abortion was settled law. Gun restrictions such as those in New York were settled law. But the GOP continues to bring up such issues and re-fight the wars.
Further, they’ve stoked the fires of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, evangelicalism, and so on. Not to mention, denigrating handicapped people and POWs, as two further examples.
Not to say that all those issues weren’t already present, because they certainly were. But the GOP under TFG has weaponized each and every divide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Denise, the “Settled Law” argument does not hold water.
At times, the Roe decision is referred to as “settled law.” Supporters of abortion may use this phrase to discourage or dismiss any attempt to overturn Roe, while opponents of abortion may use it to excuse their own unwillingness to make the abortion issue a priority. However, the phrase “settled law” is misleading. In the United States, no law is really settled. State and federal laws may be repealed by legislatures or held unconstitutional by courts, lower court decisions can be reversed by higher courts, and Supreme Court decisions can be reversed by future Supreme Courts or by voters through the constitutional amendment process.
https://www.albanyupdate.com/is-abortion-really-settled-law/
And yes the GOP may be for racism, xenophobia, homophobia, evangelicalism, and so on – but don’t forget the saviour of the Democratic Party called half of the American people deplorable! As in deserving strong condemnation; completely unacceptable.
LikeLike
I have always loathed HRC and everything she stands for, but in this case, she was correct, imho. Also, what she said pales in comparison to many things TFG and his minions have spouted.
I wouldn’t call her a saviour, either, given the results of the 2016 election. She was more of a lead weight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Denise, though I lean left, but would not vote Democrat on a bet – Hillary’s calling me a deplorable was the last straw. TFG and his minion may have spouted a lot of stuff you and I both disagree with, but they never rubbed our face in the mud and said we were deserving strong condemnation; and completely unacceptable. Deplorable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
P.S. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh both cited Roe v. Wade as settled law in their confirmation hearings. So we had two Supreme Court justices who believed in settled law and believed that abortion fell under that category. Until they didn’t!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Denise the fact that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh both cited Roe v. Wade as settled law in their confirmation hearings surely shows how unqualified to be Supreme Court Justices they are.
That they said in the hearing that they did not know that State and federal laws may be repealed by legislatures or held unconstitutional by courts, and lower court decisions can be reversed by higher courts, and Supreme Court decisions can be reversed by future Supreme Courts or by voters through the constitutional amendment process, tells you what disingenuous liars they both are.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They didn’t say that they didn’t know that laws can be overturned, per se. They said, in essence, that they considered Roe v. Wade to be a precedent they’d never mess with. Yes, they lied, but they didn’t claim ignorance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess Roe wasn’t very settled after all. They might have been more honest and said, “Do you promise to not overturn Roe? Promise, promise, promise. Cross your heart.” But they couldn’t say that and invented the notion of “settled” law, which meant the same thing. To them anyway. Not to the people they were questioning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dennis, in my view, both the R’s and D’s have used the culture wars strategically. Growing up, I first saw it in the extreme backlashes against cries for racial justice, and then against the hippies, rallying pacifists and environmentalists. Then it was against immigration… mostly targeted against peoples of color. Some of that backlash doubtless manifested in increased pressure for ‘law and order’, criminalization of fairly innocuous drugs, and harsher penalties; with usually, the R’s in the lead. At least until that famous champion of the downtrodden, Bill Clinton, pushed through ‘the end of welfare as we know it’ and successfully put D’s into the ‘tough on crime’ camp.
At any rate, the D’s increased (and now, almost exclusive) focus on the culture wars issues does seem to coincide with their gradual joining of the R’s in courting the moneyed elites, in promoting American exceptionalism, imperialism, war, and furtherance of corporate interests. When their is diminishing degrees of difference between the two Parties on such existentially critical issues, both rely even more heavily on the bugle-calls of social identitarianism to keep their partisans in the proper camps.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes. Well put.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And people who lean to towards the Republican side of the aisle can equally claim that…. the Democrats continue to bring up their pet issues and re-fight the wars.
LikeLike
New Zealand and its approach to “bought-and-paid-for” politicians. What’s the chance of this in America you think?
Secret donations to parties will soon be capped at $5,000, in a dramatic shake-up of political fundraising rules.
Currently, the identity of those who contribute less than $15,000 to a political party can remain anonymous. But new rules, to be introduced ahead of next year’s general election, will require parties to publicly name supporters who donate more than $5000.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well done, NZ! You’re learning from our corruption.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Moneyed interests will find a way. They always do.
LikeLike
The Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, were adopted in 1791. The New Zealand Parliament was established in 1854 and is one of the oldest continuously functioning legislatures in the world. And over that whole time, New Zealand was able resist legalizing bought-and-paid-for politicians. Monied interests have never prevailed.
LikeLike
I dunno, Bill, if I’d call the present situation a class war, because that seems to imply a conflict that could go one way or the other. Also, a war is something that had a beginning and will, theoretically, end at some point. And it’s not a normal, everyday occurrence.
But we know that the wealthy [and, therefore, powerful] have always been in charge. It’s a fait accompli dating back at least to the end of hunter-gatherer societies and the development of farming and established towns. As Europeans arrived in North America, the planters and merchants soon accumulated wealth and therefore assumed power in their areas.
The rise of the unions challenged the lordly Rockefellers and Carnegies of the Gilded Age, but that was a blip on the screen, as were FDR’s social programs.
The divide-and-conquer scenarios we see today simply replicate tactics used by the Romans, the European monarchs of the Renai0ssance and later, and so on.
Today’s wealthy are merely paying the politicians, the media, and their enablers to keep the populace occupied, so there’s no threat to those at the top, and their hegemony of millennia continues.
I’d add that, in the U.S., it’s pretty easy to keep the masses at odds, given that a significant percentage are gullible, ill-educated people who’ll readily believe fantasy over facts. Not very kind, but true, unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For a totally unique, clear, cogent, and very powerful FEMINIST view of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, read Naomi Wolf’s ON LOSING “ROE”: How Could This Possibly Have Happened? Easy. American Women Grew Up.
Last Friday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the ruling Roe v Wade via its decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Across the country, understandably, frightened and angry young women are protesting; screaming and weeping.
The organized, institutional, heavily funded US feminist movement, which for fifty years has predicated American feminist ideology, and its own donor appeals, on the foundation of defending Roe, is calling this ruling a travesty.
I AM GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE DEFEAT OF ROE IS NOT IN FACT A DEFEAT OF WOMEN BUT A NECESSARY EVOLUTION IN THE LAW, IN RESPONSE TO WOMEN’S ASCENDANCY IN AMERICA OVER THE LAST FIFTY YEARS. [EMPHASIS added.]
Continued at https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/on-losing-roe
LikeLike
One way that those Americans who are completely and totally fed up with what passes for political “leadership” in this country ~ and what is jammed down their throats as a system of government and thus governance ~ would be to follow the recommendation presented in an article posted to Bracing Views back on April 10 [ https://bracingviews.com/2022/04/10/reforming-americas-elections-the-notc-way/ ]:
That could EASILY be done by 2024 [assuming there is an election] if a critical mass of Americans got off their asses and demanded that it happen in each State.
That also Could be able to be done for the 2022 election, but that is entirely unlikely. As an alternative, then how about launching a Nation-Wide campaign to encourage people to Vote, and when they do, to Write In “NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES”?
LikeLike
If nothing else, it would be interesting to see if NOTC as an option on every federal ballot ~ if only as a Write In ~ had any effect on America’s Voter Turnout Rate: https://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101
People don’t vote for lots of reasons. There are those who share Emma Goldman’s sentiment that “If voting could actually, really change anything, it would be illegal.” Or they remember Papa Joe Stalin’s timeless admonition that “It’s not who votes that counts; it’s who counts the votes.” Or, they can only concur 100% with George Carlin’s “Don’t vote. It only encourages the mother-f***ers.”
But one other reason folks don’t vote is because there is no candidate that they can, in all honesty and sincerity, actually vote FOR, even if it is just AAGAINST somebody or even Everybody else.
So the question becomes: How can these people make that judgment and conviction known in a way that has any actual impact in the real world, which Not Voting does not and can not have? How can these people make a vote of conscience, and thus give voice to their beliefs, desires, and intents? And, more importantly, how can they get their votes to count; Papa Joe’s reminder notwithstanding?
LikeLike
I, too, would love to see an explicit ‘NOTC’ box on ballots. In a way, it would be a more blunt message than just leaving that ballot question blank. The latter was, of course, done to a large degree in the 2016 election. I was shocked to see the number of ballots cast w/ top line blank (in addition to 3rd Party votes). I never recalled reading any reporting about that rather startling statistic, however, and so i think it would speak so much more loudly if some large number more explicitly rejected a selection between lousy alternatives.
Even if there would be a NOTC box, though, you’d have to expect that very many people- especially committed partisans- would cast a vote on that basis alone- just as many will vote strategically in lesser-evils choices to keep the perceived ‘worst’ candidate out. After all, each party’s candidates now resort more than ever on instilling the fear of the opponent to a greater degree than on their own platforms; and there are just enough VBNMW (and VRNMW?) ‘lesser evils’ voters who are wedded to that principle and won’t risk allowing the greater evil to win even if they can’t stand ‘their’ side’s candidate.
Look at all the abuse NADER got and still gets today. I’m rather certain it was fear of being tarred with that legacy (along with genuine concern about stopping Trump) that led Sanders to reject the idea of running as an Independent / 3rd Party candidate in both 2016 & 2020.)
So I think ultimately we’ll have to implement some kind of RCV or similar vote system before the electoral duopoly can be broken such that a NOTC vote might be productive.
LikeLike
Hi Roger. Thanks for Your feedback.
That is the very intent of giving “NOTC” a mandatory spot on every federal election ballot: To send the bluntest. Most direct message possible to the Ruling Political Elite that at least Some of We, the People, are totally and completely fed up with what You call political “leadership,” the way You are running this government and this country, and, particularly, the choices You give us as to who those “leaders” will be.
And of course there will be VBNMWs and VRNMWs, and those focused on “the lesser evil” as an almost patriotic duty. But NOTC is focused on giving that 30-40% who DO NOT VOTE in Presidential elections [and the 50% who don’t in Congressionals] the Ultimate “lesser evil”: None of the candidates with their platforms, proposals, and promises that the System is deigning to offer us to choose from.
And Yes, i know all about Nader and his Ultimate Sin in 2000 when he “cost” Gore the election in Florida, and put Cheney and Bush the Lesser in the White House. The only problem with that fantasy tale is that it is complete and total Bullshit. The only reason Gore lost was because HE LOST BOTH his home state of Tennessee and Clinton’s Arkansas. Had he won either of those two HomeBoy states, he would have had sufficient Electoral Votes to be declared the winner, regardless of what happened in Florida.
i don’t know enough about Sanders or those campaigns to speculate as to why he chose not to run as an Independent or 3rd Party candidate, but i do know that he completely and totally abandoned all those people in the early stages of both Primary Campaigns who made his candidacy even remotely possible, let alone thinkable. Plus, who knows what other kinds of pressure [as either promises or threats] the Clinton and Biden folks brought to play on him?
And re Ranked Choice Voting: As i responded to a Comment made on that April 10 piece: i don’t have any problem with “proportional vote” systems. i just think that “None Of These Candidates” should be included as an optional Alternative to [and Antidote for] all the Candidates listed on the ballot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HRC called TFG supporters deplorables. And as it’s turned out, people who support him, by default, support his racism, misogyny, and all the other ugliness. To me, that’s deplorable.
And he’s rubbed a lot of people’s faces in the mud and condemned them.
LikeLike
Sorry Denise I respectively do not agree that people who support Trump, by default, support his racism, misogyny, and all the other ugliness. I supported him – and a lot of others who just wanted to drain the swamp voted for him as well. You know – the best of the two evils – however that saying goes.
And besides, the liberal mainstream media grossly exaggerated his racism, misogyny, and all the other ugliness. While failing to cover the abject corruption of the Democratic Party – See Jimmy Dore above.
Jimmy Dore for President 2024
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Dennis. : )
LikeLiked by 1 person
Denise,
A misogynist you say – The fact is that three incredibly capable WOMEN served in high profile positions in Trumps administration. Can you name them? Here is some help. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roslynlayton/2019/06/29/hundreds-of-women-have-lead-roles-in-the-trump-administration-45-more-await-senate-confirmation/?sh=4442c3dc250e
A racist you say -African American and Hispanic unemployment under his presidency was the lowest it has been in 60 years. Trump pushed through criminal justice reform and has created empowerment zones that help economically distressed communities — and their poorer residents — through tax incentives and grants. He has did more for minorities in three years than President Obama did in eight.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps-no-racist-as-past-acts-and-presidential-record-prove/
Other ugliness – you will have to be more specific my dear.
LikeLike
Gosh I wish WJA’s site allowed editing comments after you had posted…I always think of something 10 minutes after I press POST COMMENT.
My point is Denise. Did I like Trump – No way. Was he a narcissist – absolutely. But the continuance bashing he got from the liberal mainstream media was uncalled for, disgusting and shameful. And a great disservice to the country.
LikeLike
Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree, Dennis. I think the liberal media took it easy on him, considering his many lies and the harm he did to the country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump is what he is. He’s a rich a-hole who is casually sexist and racist. Though he always makes me laugh when he says “No one loves the Black more than me” or no one loves women more than he, etc.
He opened his campaign with a racist rant against murdering and raping Mexicans (some, I assume, are good people) and his comments about women — do I really need to recite all the pussy-grabbing, all the insults about women being ugly and fat, etc.?
Now, did Trump have some women in his administration? Of course. Did Trump have a few Black faces in high places? I suppose so. But you really have to be a Trumper to believe he’s a friend to women and Blacks and other minorities.
Trump cares about one thing: HIMSELF. That’s it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think “my dear” sets the tone you may think it sets. When you start lecturing a woman and then end on “my dear,” it’s easy for that to be construed as snide and condescending.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dennis is OK there, Bill, in my case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Elaine Chao – wife of Mitch McConnell – enough said
Betsy DeVos – wealthy insider who knew little or nothing about U.S. public schools
Kirstjen Nielsen – don’t know anything about her
Gina Haspel – oversaw torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere
I rate TFG as a misogynist on the basis of his bragging about grabbing women by their genitals, saying that when you’re a star, you can do anything with them.
Racism – calling Mexicans rapists, Muslim travel ban, applauding white supremacy groups; being charged with racial discrimination at Trump residential buildings
Other ugliness – making fun of a disabled reporter; deriding POWs; spreading fatal lies about COVID, after first having concealed the seriousness of the pandemic; grifting millions from supporters under false pretenses; violating the Emoluments Clause many times; threatening election officials; encouraging extremist militias; siccing a mob on his own Vice President; making over 30,500 false or misleading claims during his tenure (per WaPo fact checkers); and on and on
LikeLiked by 1 person
The deplorable comment was bad politics, and bad politics is why HRC lost. Making it memorable was the whole “basket of deplorables” image. She’d have been OK if she’d said some Trump supporters harbor deplorable views like racism, sexism, etc.
Then she doubled down by saying the “deplorables” were “irredeemable.” All lost causes to her. Basically, human scum. Again, bad politics. Akin to Romney saying that 47% of voters won’t vote for him since they’re “dependent” on government. Good luck trying to earn all the votes of the remaining 53%, Mitt!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I absolutely agree that HRC’s comment was a bad political move, and yes, it was a factor in her loss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Denise if you want to see why Roe vs Wade was overturned you better look to the Party that you support. They could have saved Roe vs Wade but refused to do so. Let Jimmy explain it to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t support the Democratic party. I’m registered as a Dem because, in Ohio, one can’t vote in primaries (including issues) without choosing a party. For me, it’s a formality.
As for Roe, I agree that the Dems screwed up large by not codifying the right to choose. It was really stupid of them not to have done so.
However, TFG ran on a stance of overturning that ruling, and promised to select judges expressly on that basis. That’s largely why he got the support of evangelicals. Meaning that the GOP actively set up the conditions for this week’s ruling. ACB was the last component for the plan.
To claim it’s the Dems’ fault that Roe was overturned is ignoring the fact that GOP operatives proactively abolished the federal right to abortion. Had the GOP done nothing, Roe would still be the law of the land.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Dems think they know what they’re doing. For them, it’s not a screw up. The abortion issue is just that: an issue. One that can be exploited to raise money and get out the vote.
They didn’t codify Roe because they didn’t want to codify it. They may not have expected it to be overturned completely, but that won’t stop them from exploiting it, as they are doing this very moment with all their fundraising calls and grandstanding.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yep. I’m getting new solicitations from my Dem senator on the grounds of Roe.
As for the Dems, yeah, they were [deliberately] negligent about a lot of things, including abortion codification. They may not have expected it to be overturned, but they should have made sure. If it was just another issue for fundraising, shame on them!
There are indeed multitudinous machinations going on behind the scenes. Read that Nancy (Pelosi) was SHOCKED at the SCOTUS ruling. If so, why was she actively supporting the only publicly-avowed anti-abortion Dem, Henry Cuellar, in Texas? Well, because Cuellar was running against a progressive. A progressive who, incidentally, was pro-choice. So….Nancy is playing her own game, and taking the Dems with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The gerontocracy … same old game for her.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Have been seeing multiple comments on gerontocracy lately. I agree that we have one at this stage, undoubtedly. But I don’t necessarily agree that “old” individuals are albatrosses, so to speak. Bernie still has ideas to contribute, for example. Are we where we are because of gerontocracy? Don’t know, because I don’t know how many younger people hold the same views as the current Establishment.
But Nancy, yeah….she’s appearing more and more ossified by the month.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It strikes me, Denise, that we used to make fun of the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s for its old leaders. Men like Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko. And they were younger than our esteemed leaders today: Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, et al.
I have a lot of respect for older people — their wisdom, their experiences. But sometimes the “old guard” just becomes, well, old. Hidebound. Almost incapable of change. And even more jealous of their power and privileges and “legacy” than younger people.
I’d count Trump as well within this old guard. He’ll be 78 in 2024 and is not the healthiest of men. Everyone talks about how demanding the presidency is, yet we defy logic by electing men who are pushing 80 and well past their prime.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with what you say here, Bill, in general. And I wonder why, in the last decade, the U.S. has become adamant about putting older people in positions of power? I don’t think the “aging boomer voters” concept is the whole answer. Perhaps it’s that the powers-that-be, the movers and shakers in the Beltway and beyond, are relying on people who have been their creatures for decades.
Although Obama is an obvious exception there. Hindsight suggests to me that he was a willing pawn from day one, relatively young and inexperienced in big government though he was. But at the beginning, he did seem bound to make changes, and as a former community organizer, he had the creds. Did they get to him before the nomination or afterward? But I digress.
I think a mix of older and younger people is the way to go for leadership. To go back to Bernie, his campaign contingent reflected all age brackets, and I think that was a good example.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes you are 100% correct. Both Parties are hopelessly corrupt and liars. And as a certain very vocal poster posts here ad nauseum, the whole US governance is systemically flawed going right back to the Constitution written by those misogynist, slave owning founding fathers.
What was this deplorable saying here about moving to another country Denise?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, movin’ out would seem to be the ticket, at this point….
LikeLiked by 1 person
THE JUSTICES DIDN’T LIE TO THE SENATE: No One In The Supreme Court’s Dobbs Majority Promised To Uphold Roe V. Wade. by The WSJ Editorial
The reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been predictably vitriolic and often full of distortions. The Justices didn’t ban abortion; they said there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to the states to decide. The majority also did not set up other rights to disappear; they explicitly said abortion is unique.
Perhaps the most unfortunate claim is that the Justices in the Dobbs majority lied during confirmation hearings. The charge is that they suggested that Roe v. Wade was a precedent that couldn’t be overturned. Coaxed on the point on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said this is grounds for impeachment, and don’t be surprised if other Democrats pick up that cudgel.
Sens. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin said Friday they feel Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch deceived them on the precedent point in testimony and in their private meetings with the Justices. We weren’t in those meetings, but we’d be stunned if either Justice came close to making a pledge about Roe.
The reason is that the first rule of judging is that you can’t pre-judge a case. Judges are limited under Article III of the Constitution to hearing cases and controversies, and that means ruling on facts and law that are specific to those cases.
NO JUDGE CAN KNOW WHAT THOSE FACTS MIGHT BE IN ADVANCE OF A CASE, AND JUDGES OWE IT TO THE PARTIES TO CONSIDER THOSE FACTS IMPARTIALLY. A JUDGE WHO CAN’T BE IMPARTIAL, OR WHO HAS ALREADY REACHED A CONCLUSION OR HAS A BIAS ABOUT A CASE, IS OBLIGED TO RECUSE HIMSELF. THIS IS JUDICIAL ETHICS 101.
An authority on this point is no less than the late progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as she explained in 1993. “It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide,” she said. “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” [EMPHASIS added.]
Continued at https://www.wsj.com/articles/lie-senate-justice-gorsuch-kavanaugh-collins-manchin-aoc-meet-the-press-abortion-dobbs-roe-casey-ginsburg-11656277455?mod=opinion_lead_pos1
LikeLike
Technically, this is correct. They didn’t lie in the sense of saying, I will support Roe.
But they did deceive, and it was obvious at the time. Any senator who believed the deception is either lying themselves or is incredibly naive.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were all groomed and picked precisely because they were reliable foes of Roe v Wade. Everyone knew this, even me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
i’m not a lawyer, but my guess is that ~ in the world of US Law at the Federal Appellate and SCOTUS levels ~ what is “technically correct” takes priority over perceptions, impressions, and deceptions. Or at least it is supposed to.
And gee, Colonel….; a US Senator lying? Who’da thunk that?
LikeLike
Your first point: Of course.
Your second point: Of course, lots of people knew Susan Collins was lying. Some might prefer a gentler term, like dissembling, not being fully forthright, etc., but she, like nearly all politicians, will say or do most anything to keep her office and her power.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Special interests have two types. Private interests seek to get the government on their side and exclude competitors and fill their coffers with more money. Economists call this “rent seeking” and it’s a big problem, obviously. But those interests are focused and concentrated and the electorate is unfocused and diffuse. So they often succeed.
The other special interest is the government itself, best illustrated by the eagerness of our foreign policy establishment to send us into war. More broadly, government agencies tend to feather their own nests and increase their own power. Some time ago I spoke to our (then) newly elected state representative who talked about their budget hearings. He said all of the agencies (25 as I recall) told the legislature they couldn’t possibly do their jobs with the measly funds they would be getting and therefore needed more money. Every single one of them. Such is the government at all levels. They want more. It’s what they do.
Our Founding Fathers considered all this and came up with our Constitution. They were brilliant people, statesmen and products of the European Enlightenment. I think the only problem we have with the Constitution is that more citizens and more politicians don’t take it seriously enough. The citizens have largely forgotten it. The politicians promise to follow it and almost immediately break their promise. I wouldn’t want any present day politicians mucking around with it.
LikeLike
They were brilliant people, statesmen and products of the European Enlightenment…
“We the people – the people in this room” …..said the misogynist slave holders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They did the best they could given the circumstances. We should do as well. But we won’t. Not nearly as well. We have much better circumstances and look at our leaders. Bleah.
LikeLike
The Special Interest You call “the government itself,” Alex, is merely the Tool that all those “Private Interests” use to increase their Wealth and/or the Benefits they get from that government.
And the only way that Government Special Interest can increase its Power [and Budget] is if enough of those Private Special Interests go along with that increase, and buy and sell enough politicians [and judges] to make that happen. Which will Only happen if that increase in GSI Power gives those PSIs more Wealth and/or Benefits. And so the Cycle goes and “The Beat Goes On,” as Sonny and Cher once put it.
You wrote: “Our Founding Fathers considered all this and came up with our Constitution. They were brilliant people, statesmen and products of the European Enlightenment.”
They also built into that Constitution the power and authority of the central government to manage, regulate, manipulate, and control virtually all economic and financial activity [including control of the currency] within the new Nation. Which is not at all surprising, given that The Founders were, overwhelmingly, from the highest levels of economic wealth and political influence in the Colonies.
And now that You mentioned it and i think about it, i understand exactly why the Constitution kept Slavery legal for 20 years [along with the “3/5 Rule” and an imbedded Fugitive Slave mandate]. Beyond, of course, the simple fact that if those things weren’t in the proposed Constitution, it would have never been ratified.
Every major Empire in Western Civilization ~ from Greece and Rome thru history up to the then-current British, French, Spanish, and Dutch Empires ~ had Slavery as a very normal, accepted, and almost expected part of the plan. And those 17th and 18th century European Empires were ~ if nothing else ~ also products of the European Enlightenment. Why should or would, or How could the new proto-Empire on the North American continent be any different?
And the fact that Women were not mentioned or even considered at all in the new Constitution is pure European Enlightenment, isn’t it?
Also, if the Citizens have largely forgotten the Constitution, that is only because their Education System [from Pre-School to Post-Grad] has failed to educate them about it. Which is just the way those Government Special Interests and their owners and operators among all those Private Special Interests like it.
But i agree with You 100% when You say “I wouldn’t want any present day politicians mucking around with it.”
That’s why a call for a new Constitutional Convention is probably a dry hole. Even if the COS folks get their 34 States, Swampland still has to approve the Convention happening. And probably the only way that will happen is if the same people who buy, sell, and regulate who’s in and who’s out in DC also get to regulate exactly Who would get to muck with it at that Convention.
LikeLike
Another Nail successfully pounded in as those “wrapped in the Flag and carrying a Bible” continue their successful assault on Freedom FROM Religion… .
If Coach Kennedy’s praying at the 50-yard line is “private speech,” does not the school district have any Right to control what happens on that football field, which is its property? Which is public, tax-payer funded property?
Why do taxpayers ~ who may have no use for prayer ~ have to pay for some private citizen’s very public “private speech” on the property they are paying for?
Well obviously: For the same reason that Maine taxpayers now have to give money to support private religious schools.
For as big a scumbag as Corporal Bonespurs was and is, he sure “Got ‘Er Done” ~ as they say in the parlance ~ for at least some Americans, eh?
…….
SUPREME COURT FURTHER ERODES SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE IN CASE OF PRAYING FOOTBALL COACH by Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed and Devan Cole, CNN
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said Monday that a Washington state school district violated the First Amendment rights of a high school football coach when he lost his job after praying at the 50-yard line after games.
The opinion was 6-3 along conservative-liberal ideological lines.
“The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
The court said coach Joe Kennedy’s prayers amounted to private speech, protected by the First Amendment, and could not be restricted by the school district.
Continued at https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/football-coach-prayer-high-school-supreme-court-kennedy/index.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course Roe v Wade was settled law. All the abortion laws in the country were based on it. Isn’t that a reasonable definition of “settled”? Gotta watch those definitions. Perhaps in future hearings they can argue about the dictionary. It’s mostly theater anyway. It’s street theater when you count that senators can be ambushed in the elevator. And didn’t we have a recent Supreme Court nominee who couldn’t define the word “woman” (or is it womxn?), arguing that everyone has their own separate definition for the term? Such are the times we live in.
LikeLike
Yes Alex, Hillary’s husband talked about definitions
LikeLike
He obviously meant he wasn’t having sexual relations at that very moment. Not that anyone could see, anyway. Bill was a big public contributor to this modern word nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Personally I think Pelosi has the right idea with this off-site electronic voting. I would go further. Send the representatives back to their districts and keep them there. OK maybe a week or so in Washington. But they should be rooted in their districts most of all and not in Washington. They can always vote over the Internet. Or by phone. This should lead to more treatment of proposed legislation as follows: “What!! Are you people out of your minds?!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is an excellent idea, Alex.
One thing it would accomplish is blow The K-Street Gang of Special Interest Lobbyists and their ilk out of business. Or at least increase their operating expenses significantly.
LikeLike
These criminals stick together have you noticed?
US President Joe Biden is slated to meet with opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Israel next month, an official familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel on Saturday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if Putin met with Mitch McConnell during a trip to the US?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well….but Israel is an ally. Ostensibly.
LikeLike
Denise, Israel is not the US’s ally. Its government does not behave as an ally does, it has never fought alongside U.S. forces in any of it’s foreign wars, and its interests are not aligned with the US’s as an ally’s should be. There is no formal treaty and no binding obligations that require the US and Israeli governments to do anything for the other.
“There are few words in U.S. foreign policy debates used more frequently and with less precision than ally and alliance. Our politicians and pundits use these terms to refer to almost every state with which the U.S. has some kind of security relationship, and it always grossly exaggerates the nature and extent of the ties between our governments. The exaggeration in Israel’s case is greatest of all because it is routinely called our “most important ally” in the region, or even our “most cherished ally” in all the world. These are ideological assertions that are not grounded in any observable reality. Dozens of other states all over the world are better allies to the United States than the “most cherished ally” is, and they don’t preside over an illegal occupation that implicates the U.S. in decades of abuses and crimes against the Palestinian people living under that occupation”
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/israel-is-not-americas-ally/
LikeLiked by 1 person
U.S. RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL: Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet [Extract]
Bureau Of Near Eastern Affairs US Department of State
January 20, 2021
U.S. SECURITY COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL
Israel’s security is a long-standing cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. The United States’ commitment to Israel’s security is supported by robust defense cooperation and the 10-year, $38 billion Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the United States and Israel in 2016. Consistent with the MOU, the United States annually provides $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million for cooperative programs for missile defense.
In addition to security assistance, the United States participates in a variety of exchanges with Israel, including joint military exercises, research, and weapons development. Further, through the annual Joint Counterterrorism Group and regular strategic dialogues, the United States and Israel work together to counter a range of regional threats.
BILATERAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS
The U.S.-Israel economic and commercial relationship is strong, anchored by bilateral trade of close to $50 billion in goods and services annually. U.S.-Israel bilateral economic relations are codified in a number of treaties and agreements, including the 1985 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the Agreement on Trade in Agricultural Products. Since signing the FTA in 1985, U.S.-Israel bilateral goods and services trade has grown eight-fold, making the United States Israel’s largest trading partner. U.S. goods exports to Israel in 2019 were $14.7 billion, with $19.6 billion of imports in 2019. U.S. exports of services to Israel were an estimated $5.7 billion in 2019, with imports of $7.4 billion. The United States and Israel also coordinate scientific and cultural exchanges through the Binational Science Foundation (BSF), the Binational Agricultural Research and Development Foundation (BARD), Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD) and the U.S.-Israeli Education Foundation. To facilitate economic cooperation, the two countries convene a Joint Economic Development Group each year to discuss our economic partnership and possible initiatives for the coming year.
Full Text at https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Since 1999, overall U.S. assistance to Israel has been outlined in 10-year government-togovernment Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). MOUs are not legally binding agreements
like treaties, and thus do not require Senate ratification. Also, Congress may acce
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33222.html
Trade agreements are not Treaties. I repeat – there is no formal treaty and no binding obligations that require the US and Israeli governments to do anything for the other.
LikeLike
Tell that to any politician in the White House or Congress, or bureaucrat in the State Department or Pentagon, and see if how many agree with Your distinction between Treaties, on the one hand, and Trade Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, etc, on the other.
And how much money and military hardware would Israel get from the United States if it was not proposed by the President and approved by Congress?
LikeLike
And the primary reason Israel has never been involved in any of America’s Wars is because it is too busy fighting its own Wars.
Israel was conceived after World War I [the Balfour Declaration] and brought into existence after World War II to serve as: 1. A Refuge for European Jews after Europe and America did nothing to stop the Holocaust; and 2. A forward base of operation for British and American Oil interests in the Middle East.
And that is what it still is. Having been in Israel in 1980-1982 as part of the boots-on-the-ground implementation of the Carter-Begin-Sadat Peace Deal that returned the Sinai to Egypt lost in the Six Day War, i am very familiar with the whole history of that situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
On the other hand, America has been deeply involved in all of Israel’s Wars because we have been ~ since it began in 1948 ~ the primary supplier of military hardware to and bankroller of Israel’s military.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The US Congress could cut off every single dime to Israel tomorrow. As they should until Israel ceases its illegal occupation of Palestine and its abuses and crimes against the Palestinian people living under that occupation.
The problem the US has is that half the Congressmen, and the current President, are bought and paid for “Israel Firsters”. To them Israel is more important than the USA and their love and loyalty to Israel goes far beyond the love and loyalty for their home country.
For example in 2011 11 of the 13 freshmen GOP Senators pledged their allegiance to the state of Israel, by signing a letter “committing to current levels of defense assistance to Israel.” A similar letter was also signed by 65 of the 87 GOP freshmen in the House of Representatives. The states and districts represented by these GOP traitors must be real proud of them. Even when cities and towns across the country are cutting spending by shutting down fire departments and schools and laying off city and state employees, these scumbags still found it necessary to protect the $3 billion dollars of aid to a foreign entity.
That the Leahy Human Rights Laws that prohibit the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense from providing military assistance to foreign security force units that violate human rights with impunity are not pursued by Congress with respect to Israel is a travesty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the amount of military hardware, money, and diplomatic cover at the UN and elsewhere that the United States has given Israel over these past 74 years since 1948, can You name one American President or Congress that were not “Israel Firsters”? Your boy Trump, perhaps?
And that Leahy Law happened in 1997. We know Clinton, Cheney, and Obama didn’t enforce and apply it. Again, how’d Trump do in that area?
And why do You think it is that America’s political “leadership” is now and has been since The Creation in 1948 a bunch of “Israel Firtsers”?
Remember that all Israel is ~ and has ever been ~ is a Forward Base for The American Empire in that part of the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JG, are you familiar with this History of that situation?
The Kansas City Times, September 13, 1976 – ¨There are 30 months before the fate of the world will be sealed with EITHER Destruction OR the Universal Brotherhood of Man,¨ he said. ¨The 30 month figure concerned a Treaty between Israel and Egypt.¨
NOTE: This does not say Armageddon happens in 30 months from the article.
Not 29 or 31, but exactly 30 months LATER, in March 1979, history shows a Treaty between Israel and Egypt was signed. The Camp David Accord. History shows talks broke down on the 12th day and no Treaty was to be signed. Begin and Sadat were leaving. It was on the 13th Day, as in the date of the Article and the picture accompanying it, an unexpected window of opportunity appeared and opened the way for the Treaty to be signed.
This signified the Universal Brotherhood part of the quote.
The Destruction part came into focus with the 1979 Iranian Revolution a month earlier, in accordance with “TO DO GOD’S BIDDING: To tell the World, from Kansas City, this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered.
For those who know, those words are the 1st 2 parts of the 3 part WRITING ON THE WALL from Daniel 5, the END TIMES Prophet, when Imperial Power was transferred from Ancient BABYLON now known as Iraq, to Ancient Persia, now know. as Iran.
The 3rd part of the WRITING ON THE WALL records the king of BABYLON threw a feast for 1000 of the Elite of the kingdom, and they praised the gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, wood and stone.
In other words, from then to now, It’s the Economy, Stupid!
LikeLike
Hi Ray. Thanks for passing that on.
No, i’m not familiar with that particular History; but i have heard and read similar ones.
i’d like to ask some questions about Your History. But first, if i may, i’d like to ask You what Your reaction and response is to the US Supreme Court’s decisions these past several days on: 1. abortion; 2. forcing taxpayers to support private religious schools; and 3. declaring that somebody has the “right” to pray on property on which he does not have the property owner’s permission to pray.
Any thoughts on that?
As regards Your History, my questions are related to The Grand, Cosmic Scheme of Things, within the context of that which You are declaring happens next:
What was the ultimate function and purpose of The Holocaust?
What is the ultimate function and purpose of the Nation-State of Israel?
What is the ultimate function and purpose of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians?
What is the ultimate function and purpose of the United States of America?
What is the ultimate function and purpose of the People’s Republic of China?
Any thoughts on that?
LikeLike
I count at least eight questions here. This is way beyond the scope of my article and the ability of this site to handle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It reminds me of college finals. “Define the universe and give 2 examples. (10 minutes).”
LikeLiked by 1 person
JG, I agree with Bill, there are a lot of questions in your reply. Even before Bill posted his comment, I was mindful of his request to keep it short and relevant and wondered how I should answer?
Bill’s Blog has the record on what I saw developing with the Supreme Court during the Trump Presidency.
Essentially I was saying the US Constitution is explicit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
I warned back then long before the current abortion and other rulings, while Congress is not passing any Law to promote a State Religion other than Blind Patriotism, The Supreme Court is doing an end run around the Constitution with the last 3 appointees being Lawyers Ideologically trained and prepared by the Heritage Foundation who recommended to Trump who he should appoint to the Court.
It is evident The US Supreme Court lost it’s way with the Citizens United decision.
In 1982 I made the front page of The Ottawa Citizen in a picture of Prime Minister Trudeau entering The Confederation Centre for a meeting with the Provincial Premiers on the Economy.
I was a few feet away as he got out of his limousine and said, “Prime Minister! Look at my Sign. I had it made for you and the Premiers.”
It was beautifully done in Calligraphy reading, WOE TO THOSE WHO JUDGE FOR HIRE AND PROFIT BUT NOT FOR JUSTICE AND TRUTH.
The irony is, his son is in constant Economic talks with the Premiers.
The place for me to answer your questions is in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES article in my Blog, not Bill’s. Post them there and I’ll reply.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ray.
The other comment you sent me is too long to post. Perhaps you might post it at your site, and include a link to it here in my comments section.
LikeLike
And I cut a lot out with the […]. What is the character limit for your Blog now?
Considering my April 18 email to the Pope saying NATO provoked Putin to invade Ukraine, and he Publicly
saying the same thing 2 weeks later on May 3, is certainly interesting for me to note in the Timeline.
wsj – Pope Francis said that the “barking of NATO at the door of Russia” might have led to the invasion of Ukraine
politico.eu – Pope says NATO may have caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
telegraph.uk – Pope Francis: Nato may have provoked Russian invasion of …
LikeLike
That’s why I said, “ostensibly.” Should have used my sarcasm font!
LikeLiked by 2 people
89% of US Senators and Congress hold dual citizenship citizenship with Israel. The US is in Syria because of Israel. Ask yourself who are the real traitors to the country sacrificing American soldiers for the benefit of foreign country.
LikeLike
Do You have a source on that statement?
And are You sure Your source is talking about Americans politicians who have dual citizenship with Israel?
Or is Your source talking about American politicians who are Jewish?
LikeLike
I think you stumbled onto bogus info, Dennis.
See thus article debunking the dual citizenship claim:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/feb/25/blog-posting/no-members-congress-dont-have-dual-citizenship-isr/
LikeLiked by 1 person
@DENISE DONALDSON.
Yeah, I see that Denise. My info was bogus. Win some Lose some! LOL
LikeLike
SCOTUS is busy again today I see… this Court is going to tear the country apart!
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a former high school football coach in Bremerton, who prayed with his players and other students on the field, could legally do so under his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.
The high court ruled 6-3 Monday in Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District along ideological lines for Joseph Kennedy, a former part-time assistant coach. Every Republican-appointed justice sided with Kennedy; every Democratic-appointed justice dissented…
The decision marks a substantial ruling in the decades-old argument over prayer in public schools. In weighing the religious rights of school officials with the rights of students to not feel pressured to participate in religious practices, the court came down firmly on Kennedy’s side.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-bremertons-praying-coach/
So much for separation of church and state eh? This sucks! 844-commentors in the Seattle Times within 3-hours almost unanimously agree that this sucks! I like this comment… LOL
“Would the Catholic SCOTUS approve if it was a Muslim, Hindu, atheist, pagan or yogi meditation on the 50 yard line? The answer is of course no. When America says “in God we trust” it means the white, long haired friendly Jesus make-believe character.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great question. I’d like to see a Muslim praying in the direction of Mecca at the end of a game. Free speech! We applaud it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, an important question and one I do think ought to be put to the practical test. Bill (if I may), I love your idea. I’d love to see a campaign organized by leaders of various other religions, to push this horrible decision to its logical implications and see what this group of radical extremist fundamentalists of SCOTUS then say about the freedom of religious expression. Maybe we need to encourage a few devout Muslim coaches, teachers, and administrators to put it to the test.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe I should rephrase this….this Court is going to turn the country into a theocracy.
LikeLike
Maybe I can run to be Pope!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You pretty much have to be Italian. Most of the time anyway.
LikeLike
Well, I never thought the Church establishment would ever tolerate a guy like Francis, so I suppose anything is possible. But don’t you have to be at least an ordained priest, first? Maybe i could do that, rise up the hierarchy to the College of Cardinals… and you’d get my vote. I’d have to hurry, though, as time isn’t on my side. But I also think lying is a sin and i’d have to lie about my beliefs to even get a foot in the door.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In other SCOTUS news, they just weakened the requirements for the communication of Miranda rights. Police and law enforcement agencies can no longer be sued by perpetrators for not reading them those rights. If police question a suspect without the presence of an attorney, and the person admits to wrongdoing, oh, well. From what I read, it’s now incumbent on a suspect to affirmatively invoke his rights. As in, “I invoke my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer. The analysis said that most law enforcement will continue to Mirandize suspects, however, just to cover their bases in case of appeal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Suspects still have to be Mirandized. It’s just that suspects who haven’t been can’t sue afterwards. The way these things work is that often (usually?) the state (i.e. the taxpayers) ends up paying the legal bills for both sides. And there isn’t a limit on the ability to sue. At least there didn’t used to be. Now there is. Good thing as far as I’m concerned.
LikeLike
And why shouldn’t the State pay for the failures of its law enforcement personnel to follow The Law as far as Mirandizing is concerned?
If cops and the governments they work for can’t be sued because they screw up, what’s going to be their incentive to NOT screw up? Their deep-seated honesty, integrity, and dedication to public service?
LikeLike
The incentive is that any statements without Miranda can’t be used as evidence. And any evidence found as a result of such statements can’t be used in court. Which is why LEO will still Mirandize.
LikeLike
That’s under ALL circumstances that any statements or evidence found without Miranda can’t be used in court? i’m going to have to do some research on that. Do You have any links that verify what You are saying?
LikeLike
The analysis I read gives somewhat different conclusions on several points, as I understand it. It doesn’t mention that statements and evidence obtained from non-Mirandized suspects cannot be used as evidence. It says that the defense can argue that such evidence is inadmissible. There might be a lot of back-and-forth if there are actually loopholes. Looks as if quite a bit of black-letter law bit the dust last week.
(non-paywall link)
https://www.rsn.org/001/you-have-to-say-the-magic-words-what-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-miranda-rights-means-for-you.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Supreme Court deals with Constitutionality. I’m guessing the question was whether suspects have a Constitutional right to sue police departments for not Mirandizing them. The court said no.
LikeLike
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a House investigation into whether two Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade should be impeached for lying at their confirmation hearings about their views of the landmark abortion-rights case.
In a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat and progressive firebrand, said that she thinks the justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were dishonest when discussing Roe at the hearings.
“They lied,” Ocasio-Cortez said during the interview, adding at another point that “there must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions.”
In raising the specter of impeachment, Ocasio-Cortez seized on comments by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joe Manchin, D-W.V., both of whom voted to confirm the justices.
The senators appeared to express misgivings about doing so after the court’s ruling on Roe, saying in statements that the justices had indicated during the confirmation process that the case was a settled matter.
Neither justice gave straightforward answers about ruling on Roe. Kavanaugh declined to directly answer whether the decision was “correct law.” He said at one point that the case was “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/ocasio-cortez-wants-2-justices-impeached-for-lying-under-oath/
LikeLike
Another distraction. What AOC needs to do is use her influence (she has 13.1 million followers on Twitter) to force the Democrats to codify abortion access at the federal level.
But of course this would anger Pelosi and the establishment, so we get these frivolous calls instead for impeachment, which even if they went forward would go nowhere because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh deliberately spoke in vague terms. They’re lawyers! They know how to avoid incriminating themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And with Manchin and Sinema firmly in the GOP camp, codification would likely be a lost cause, even if AOC were willing to confront Nancy.
But I do agree with AOC’s sentiments!
LikeLiked by 1 person
AOC is mostly a media hound. “Oh look at me, I’m special.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
In fairness, it is part of the job for any candidate or elected official who intends to run again to get media attention. It ‘comes with the turf’, you could say. So AOC is no different than anyone else. Her reputation as “a firebrand” just means that she will get more attention (wanted and otherwise) than some other, more mainstream / unremarkable folk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s true. The way power is structured in the House it’s apparent that the only person who really matters is Nancy Pelosi. If I was a Democrat Congressman I would just give Pelosi my permanent proxy and then go home to my district. Although I would miss the Washington hobnobbing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
AOC could do so much. She’s intelligent, attractive, popular, a working-class woman of color (former bartender) who’s now a Congresswoman. But she’s decided she wants to work with the system, not against it. She wants to be an insider and an outsider, and you can’t be both. So she’s become an insider.
LikeLiked by 2 people
AOC has been smacked down more than once—e.g., the Green New Deal—so maybe she’s made the [almost always futile] decision to try to effect change from within the system. We saw how that worked when Bernie tried it….NOT.
OR, she has joined the bought-and-paid-for ranks.
LikeLike
I agree.. another distraction and at best, a way to declare outrage or perhaps serve as a (feeble) shot across the bow. There is no way that an impeachment could succeed based on answers to questions that were deliberately evasive but not technically lies. As you said, the justice candidates are lawyers… and any attempt to prosecute would be only more fodder for lawyers to loudly chew.
But AOC understands political showmanship now and seems to prefer that to actively challenging the status quo that her Party generally represents. Indeed, I’d be less cynical if she would use her influence for better purpose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1,402 comments now on the Seattle Times article on SCOTUS ruling on prayer in high-school football games,
Almost 95% of WA citizens disagreeing with SCOTUS and highly pissed off!
LikeLike
Lt. Col are you deliberately not allowing comments on your latest blog – Going “Hard” in America’s Schools
Hardening Schools and Arming Teachers Is the Wrong Approach?
WordPress is not showing a Leave Comments prompt.
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
My understanding is that the guy took a knee in the end zone for a 15-30 second silent prayer at the end of football games. Other people voluntarily joined him and nobody ever suggested a penalty for not joining. Professional football players do it all the time. But the school officials decided, sacre bleu, zis is unforgivable, and suspended him from his job. Highly overreacting school officials are a bane of existence. Don’t they have medication for that? It’s not like he was leading an insurrection. If the people in WA want to be highly pissed off about something they should be pissed off at our semi-declared war on Russia, which is causing untold hardship for many.
LikeLike
Alex he was huddling all the players in a prayer before and after the game, and at halftime. On the sideline. If you did not join in you were ostracised as not a team player. So essentially it was a compulsory prayer for all players. If you were an atheist, you were forced to join in.
The school officials asked him not to do it. A simple order like all the other orders given by your employer that you either obey, or you are fired. But he refused to do what he was told so they let him go. And he went wailing to the Courts. He was a jerk.
LikeLike
I guess we have different information. I wasn’t there at the games so I have no first hand knowledge. Unfortunately our news media shows no obligation to report the truth of anything so who knows what to believe. It’ll just be an (insignificant) mystery.
LikeLike
Alex, I lived not 20-miles from that high school in Bremerton WA. And our little local newspaper, the KITSAP SUN, covered this blow by blow. Many parents at the games saw what was going on and protested to the school. I even called the head administrator and talked to him, and offered him my support of what he was doing. This Kennedy guy thought he had more power than the school that employed him and did not have to follow any rules. A total jerk.
LikeLike
The 1st and 14th Amendments combined say the state can’t prevent a citizen’s free exercise of his religion. It sounds like the school district, an agency of the state, did exactly that, succumbing to complaining parents. Their mistake. Perhaps the school will take the Constitution more seriously after this. It’s possible.
LikeLike
@ALEX,
Yeah this has been argued – but in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Constitution neither requires nor authorizes public schools to allow officials to pray “at the center of a school event.” She included a photo of Kennedy raising a helmet, surrounded by dozens of players kneeling in prayer. She cited the same sections of the Bill of Rights as the majority, writing that they protected students who have a right to education free from government-exercised religion.
“Official-led prayer strikes at the core of our constitutional protections for the religious liberty of students and their parents,” Sotomayor wrote. The court’s decision, she wrote, “elevates one individual’s interest in personal religious exercise, in the exact time and place of that individual’s choosing, over society’s interest in protecting the separation between church and state.”
Furthermore the Washington States Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, which oversees public schools in the state, said it and local school districts will continue to investigate complaints of school officials who use their position to compel religious participation. “It remains illegal and unethical for public school employees to coerce, pressure, persuade, or force students, players, staff, or other participants to engage in any religious practice as a condition of playing, employment, belonging, or participation,” OSPI wrote Monday. OSPI said the ruling affirmed that school employees can engage in individual prayer as long as it’s not part of their official responsibilities and there’s no expectation that others join.
Taryn Darling, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Washington, which filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the school district, said the decision erodes protections for public school students to “learn and grow free of coercion.” “Kitsap County is a religiously diverse community and students reported they felt coerced to pray,” Darling said. “This decision strains the separation of church and state — a bedrock principle of our democracy — and potentially harms our youth.”
LikeLike
I guess the question is one of coercion.
LikeLike
The ACLU has quite the racket going. They sue schools for the slightest mention of God, win their cases, and the schools are forced to pay the fees of the ACLU lawyers. The result is poorer schools and richer lawyers. The politicians make sure the laws say the lawyers can keep collecting and in return the lawyers donate to their campaigns. Corruption anybody?
LikeLike
As is apparent, different justices have a very different take on the implications / effects of those amendments.
So I’d like to ask a simpler question or two: Does anyone seriously think that a player who wants to get or keep PT and possibly make the team the following year, or a student who aspires to try out / make the team, would not feel pressured to conform and join the coach in the mid-field prayer? And given that this is a subunit of governance, what message is sent broadly in this display? Is it any different than putting up the 10 commandments or statue of Jesus, Mary and Joseph on a public building?
One must consider and answer such questions honestly to get any sense of why a school district, any players, students or parents (or even just taxpayers) would find it unacceptable and a violation of THEIR own rights, and why so many people, including many who are themselves religious are upset.
In my view, it is clear that such officially-sanctioned religious activities are a violation of the’ ‘establishment of religion” prohibition. Aside from that, as the OP’s quote of Christ suggests, it is also cheap, insincere display that contradicts the very teachings of the coach’s presumed master.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IN GOD WE TRUST is on US Currency.
Where is the line between Church and State?
Is nuclear armed Israel recreated from the Bible, currently holding War exercises in preparation for War with Iran, a matter of Religion? Power? Prophecy?
LikeLike
Re. the slogan on currency: yes, this has always been a point of friction especially for avowed atheists. I don’t really want to chase down that intellectual rabbit-hole; perhaps because while I am non-religious I do not feel it represents any State “establishment of religion”. Would it be better if it were not on that currency? Probably. Especially given that Jesus the Christ took special offense at money-lenders and the focus on money itself.
I’ll also pass on the q’s in your last question Israel’s government clearly is using sectarianism in pretty un-righteous ways- to suppress those not of their faith. Some deeply spiritual Jews also find that offensive, by the way – a co-opting of the Jewish faith for political and cultural and economic hegemony.
LikeLike
I like “In God we trust … all others pay cash.” 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s actually a previous SCOTUS ruling that would seem to be on point, which essentially says prayer before a football game, if led by a school representative, is unconstitutional:
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/672/santa-fe-independent-school-district-v-doe
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’ll forgive a reference to Christ’s teaching, Dennis, Jesus told us to pray in private, in secret, not openly and ostentatiously. The latter form of praying he associated with hypocrites looking for applause.
I wonder how this may apply here? 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
“But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” Matthew 6:6
LikeLike
Look at you! Quoting scripture, Dennis! There’s hope for the world yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bill, I was raised in a church going Anglican family. Read the Bible and went to church for many years. Even taught young children at Sunday school. When I went to University (Her Majesties Queen Victoria University of Wellington) I took maths and science. But you had to take one semester of an arts subject. I took philosophy for one year. (!) And my favourite Professor was a retired Presbyterian Minister who taught me how to think – and convinced me to become an atheist. He was a great guy. LOL
LikeLike
I was very lucky Lt.Col.
George Edward Hughes (8 June 1918 – 4 March 1994) was an Irish-born New Zealand philosopher and logician whose principal scholarly works were concerned with modal logic and medieval philosophy. Hughes was a gifted and revered teacher who played a prominent role in academic affairs at Victoria University. He is well remembered for his passion for clarity, his uncompromising intellectual honesty, and his humanity and gentleness.[1]
His early interests were in ethics and the philosophy of religion, but he is most widely known for books on modal logic co-authored with his colleague and former student Max Cresswell. In 1968 they published An Introduction to Modal Logic, the first modern textbook in the area. This book, which has been translated into German, Italian, Japanese and Spanish, was influential in introducing many generations of students and researchers to Kripke semantics, a mathematical theory of meaning that revolutionised the study of modal logics and led to applications ranging from the semantics of natural languages to reasoning about the behaviour of computer programs. Vaughan Pratt, the creator of dynamic logic, has written in reference to his own motivation that “a weekend with Hughes and Cresswell convinced me that a most harmonious union between modal logic and programs was possible”.[2]
Hughes’ other special interest was in medieval philosophical logic, where his main projects were the preparation of philosophical commentaries on Latin manuscripts of John Buridan and Paul of Venice, as well as English translations of the originals.
He was also a priest in the Church, having been ordained in Bangor Cathedral in 1950. At that time there was a need for clergy who could conduct services in both Welsh and English, so the then Bishop of Bangor ordained several men whom he considered suitable, but who had not had the usual theological training. Hughes had a flair for languages that enabled him to quickly learn how to pronounce the set words of the service even though he was not a Welsh speaker.
LikeLike
O ye of little faith!
Seriously, everyone should be free to believe what they wish to believe. I’m a Christian agnostic — I think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The latter form of praying he associated with hypocrites looking for applause.”
Although I’m not religious at all, I really like this comment. It applies in a multitude of situations!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Note for Readers
I’m struggling with comments at this site. Some comments are straying wildly from the subject and/or are argumentative and otherwise in violation of my policy on comments.
Some future articles will not allow comments.
I also find myself having to moderate comments one by one, which is time-consuming.
If necessary, I will block people who continue to violate my comments policy.
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re in power now and totally had the chance to fix this but we didn’t. So please give us more money so we can continue to do nothing about this.
LikeLike
Grifters, all. And they say Trump is a con man. So too are Obama and Biden and so many others who promised to codify Roe and then did nothing. A con for your money and your vote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Democrats needed to maintain pro-abortion as an integral part of their party identity. Similar to what the Republicans had with the Cold War. At the start of his term Biden asked his favorite historians what he should do to be written up as a great President like FDR or LBJ. They said spend lots of money and have lots of programs. So he did. Of course now that Biden has started Cold War II maybe he’ll be known for that. That and inflation. Even better than that other great President, Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately Mitch McConnell doesn’t want the Republicans to be left behind for Cold War II so he joined up as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great to see the jag off comedian pothead continually holding these clowns to account. Jimmy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qnPU5vEQRY
LikeLike
Oh Oh! Trump in 2024! LOL
“An overwhelming and growing majority of Americans say the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction, including nearly 8 in 10 Democrats, according to a new poll that finds deep pessimism about the economy plaguing President Joe Biden.
Eighty-five percent of U.S. adults say the country is on the wrong track, and 79% describe the economy as poor, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The findings suggest Biden faces fundamental challenges as he tries to motivate voters to cast ballots for Democrats in November’s midterm elections.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/most-say-nation-on-wrong-track-including-dems-ap-norc-poll/
LikeLike
Precisely why the cynical Dems/DNC are counting on abortion and outrage over Jan. 6th to get out the vote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not that they have much else to run on….
LikeLike
The first duty of any politician is to be re-elected. Or so it seems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what’s so dumb is that most people don’t realize that Biden has nothing to do with inflation or high gas prices. There’s precious little he can do about either, but the GOP is having a field day.
LikeLike
Another insightful and credible analysis of the US War with Russia over Ukraine by Scott Ritter: The Fantasy of Fanaticism
Despite what some “defense analysts” may be telling Western media, the longer the war continues, the more Ukrainians will die and the weaker NATO will become.
For a moment in time, it looked as if reality had managed to finally carve its way through the dense fog of propaganda-driven misinformation that had dominated Western media coverage of Russia’s “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine.
In a stunning admission, Oleksandr Danylyuk, a former senior adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and Intelligence Services, noted that the optimism that existed in Ukraine following Russia’s decision to terminate “Phase One” of the SMO (a major military feint toward Kiev), and begin “Phase Two” (the liberation of the Donbass), was no longer warranted. “The strategies and tactics of the Russians are completely different right now,” Danylyuk noted. “They are being much more successful. They have more resources than us and they are not in a rush.”
“There’s much less space for optimism right now,” Danylyuk concluded.
In short, Russia was winning.
Danylyuk’s conclusions were not derived from some esoteric analysis drawn from Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but rather basic military math. In a war that had become increasingly dominated by the role of artillery, Russia simply was able to bring to bear on the battlefield more firepower than Ukraine…………………
https://scheerpost.com/2022/06/26/scott-ritter-the-fantasy-of-fanaticism/
LikeLike