She wasn't consistent with regards to "I Am Woman." She co-wrote the song. She spent much of her career downplaying and disowning.
Even after she realized she would have no other claim to fame, she was still willing to whore what many saw as an anthem by turning it into a joke (that burger commercial).
Helen was always a joke. A lounge singer who stumbled onto fame in the US. Briefly.
She was Anne Murray without sex appeal. You can't get more middle of the road than Helen.
For her fans? It appears to be forgotten that Helen took a lot of jobs and then didn't show. 1977? The Kansas State Fair was only one example. She'd just not show. (On that one, she was sued because she claimed she was sick but she'd finished her Vegas act with no missed performances.)
Mac Davis died today as well. I'm more upset about Mac's death than Helen's death. "Baby, Don't Get Hooked On Me" is a great song and he didn't make fun of it with a burger commercial.
Tuesday, September 29, 2020. One day till the big debate . . .
I
woke up this morning and, while working out, thought, "Oh, I missed the
debate last night!" Then, after a moment, I was okay with that. But I
didn't miss it, it's tonight. They're calling it a presidential
debate. That's not really true.
Donald Trump is the
president of the United States. He's not debating, for example, Emanuel
Macron -- the president of France. He's debating another person who
would like to be president of the United States: Joe Biden.
Another person.
Singular.
There are other people running for that office.
Howie
Hawkins, for example, is running on the Green Party ticket, Gloria La
Riva is running on the Party for Socialism and Liberation's ticket and
Joseph Kishore is running on the Socialist and Equality Party's
ticket.
In addition, there's Jo Jorgensen.
For
years, the claim has been that limiting the 'debate' to the Republican
and Democratic candidates makes sense because they are the only ones who
could logically win due to ballot access issues. That is not a valid
reason for limiting the debates.
However, in 2020, that
'reasoning' is even more problematic. Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian
Party's presidential candidate, is someone who can be voted on in every
state.
'Wait,
wait, wait, you can do a write-in in any state.' You can do that but
if the name you write-in is not a recognized write-in candidate, your
vote may not count depending upon your state's laws. If you write in
Bernie Sanders, for example, in Texas, your vote will go to Joe Biden
because, in that state, they 'interpret.' If you write in any Democrat
-- living or dead -- your vote will go to whomever's the top of the
ticket. Rebecca noted that in "why would you write-in bernie sanders?" last week.
Jo
Jorgensen can be voted on in every state. She's met the rules and
guidelines. She should be on the stage tonight. We should point out
that Jo's had it a little bit easier than Howie Hawkins. Both have had
to fight to meet the various rules and guidelines -- which differ from
state to state. But for Jo, meeting those guidelines was largely the
end of it. For Howie?
He's had to meet the
guidelines and then face legal challenges from the Democratic Party.
They've spent a lot of money keeping him off the ballot. And we call
this a democracy? And Democrats often want to chant "Count every
vote!" The hypocrisy needs to be called out. We need a better system
and we need one that has fairness built in.
Disenfranchising
voters is something we on the left love to point out when Republicans
do it. Greg Palast, in fact, has built a career out of doing just
that. But disenfranchising voters is also keeping candidates off the
ballot. And partisan judges -- Democrats -- who go along with these
efforts need to be called out and probably removed from office because
they're not holding office to promote the Democratic Party, they're
holding office to upholds the law.
Why do we allow
this to happen? Clearly, the Democratic Party does not value We The
People -- two primaries in a row, they've rigged it so Bernie Sanders
couldn't get the nomination. Two general elections in a row, they've
given us distasteful candidates who don't run on issues. And they don't
trust the voter enough to allow choices. There's nothing that Howie
Hawkins is offering, issues he's running on, that Joe Biden couldn't
co-opt and grab. But Joe doesn't want to run on issues. He is against
Medicare For All, he is for destroying the environment (as evidenced by
his recent pro-fracking comments). Instead of trying to grab voters
from Howie, the Democratic Party uses their energy to keep Howie off the
ballot -- the ultimate act of disenfranchisement.
This
year's game plan is to keep every left or left leaning candidate for
president off the ballot and present only two choices: Joe or Donald --
with Donald being the man the party and their media counterparts have
demonized non-stop. They're trying to ensure that you have no choice.
And the media is disgusting. Playing games, choosing sides. They want
to pretend that they're part of a vibrant democracy but they aren't.
They lie for Joe, they fluff for Joe. Anyone watching this, anyone
impartial, should be appalled by how the system has been gamed this go
round.
B-b-b-but it's different, it's the election of our lifetime!!!!
No.
No,
it's really not. And that lie's been used over and over -- in 2004,
THE NATION called it the torture election, remember? That's what was on
the table. And we'd never be the same and we'd never and we'd never
that and blah blah blah.
Some crazys insisted Donald
would postpone the election because it was a pandemic. Didn't happen.
But I'm seeing a lot of people postponing ethics and truth this cycle to
give Joe a 'break' because this is such an important election, so
important that facts and standards no longer matter. So we all pretend,
for example, that it's okay Jill Biden is campaigning more than her
husband. In what world? He's hiding behind her skirts. If he can't
campaign for the job, he's not up for it. How pathetic that he hides
away and he knows the bulk of the press will go along with it and offer
excuses and justifications.
There are no legitimate
excuses. He's trying to promote social distancing? Were that the case,
his wife wouldn't be on the campaign trail.
And the
media won't point that out, they won't do their job. She slaps down
Jake Tapper who has a legitimate questions about Joe's 'gaffes' (lies)
and says that Donald Trump makes that question moot. No, Jill, he
doesn't.
If you're going to lie, I'm going to have to
call you out. And I avoided mentioning you the whole time your husband
was president (violating that only once for a veterans issue) because I
do like you and if I noted you, it was only fair that I criticized you
if you were wrong.
Jill, you're wrong.
Joe's
running to be president. If he succeeds, Donald is an ex-president.
So how are Joe's gaffes (lies) moot? They're not. They go to several
important issues and Jake should have pushed back on you. The press
should push back on you.
Your husband is allegedly
running for president -- apparently, Jill's his legs, the new First Lady
Roosevelt -- and that means every question deserves answers. He is
answerable to We The People if he wants to be president and it is really
shameful to pretend otherwise.
This is just one more election.
The country will still be standing after election day. And all the
people who've whored and lied better grasp that no one needs them
anymore. Norman Solomon, you're a joke. I tried to forgive you but we
clearly can't.
You're a little whore who forgot that Lt
Ehren Watada was the issue. Not some journalist covering him (I'll
leave her name out of it, apparently she didn't ask for Norman's
repulsive actions). Instead of supporting Ehren, you chose to publicly
insist that he do this or that. In the midst of his Article 32 hearing?
While his future hung in the balance? You wanted to put additional
pressure on him?
F**k you, Norman, f**k you.
You
followed that nonsense with injecting yourself into a couple's
relationship and the couple divorced, you know who I mean. To this day,
you were the instigator and that is on you.
Then you
decided to go PACIFICA RADIO and other stations trashing Hillary Clinton
in 2008 -- while failing to inform listeners that you were a supporter
of Barack Obama, a pledged delegate. Now you included that in your
syndicated columns and you made that disclosure there because you knew
that failing to do so could end your syndicated career -- your writings
not good enough to justify syndication and you know it.
So you lied to people over and over.
Then
you show up in 2019 and you start trashing Elizabeth Warren because
that's what you do, what you've always done, when it comes to women.
That's who you are, a pig. You were for Bernie!!!! But then you were
for Joe. And it wasn't enough to support Joe, you then had to trash
third party candidates.
I get it, Norman, not only are
you a whore, but you also couldn't write convincingly of Joe Biden. So
you instead teamed up with others and start trashing third party
candidates. (The previous sentence originally included one name and the
question of: "___ why did you send me into a meeting with a CIA
recruiter -- a meeting you passed off as an academic meeting." I've
long told the story here about how I refused CIA recruitment in
college. And I've been very kind by leaving ____'s name blank. As with
Saint Beau, people can be put on notice that I'm pretty damn tired of
holding my tongue. ____ should get honest about their CIA ties. Or
they should retire from public life because I've been about as kind to
_____ as I plan to be.)
Norman, you're useless.
Your trash and now your trash with an odor that everyone can smell.
Clearly, you do not value independent thought or the American people.
The 2024 election cycle will be much better without you. A reality that
you, and many others, will be forced to face.
Once
upon a time, Norman pretended to give a damn about the Iraq War. He
used for publicity. These days, he pimps War Hawk Joe Biden. These
days, he refuses to demand accountability for the ongoing war.
Not everyone's as cowardly and pathetic as Norman Solomon.
General debate Item 4: Human rights situations that require the
Council’s attention
25 September 2020
Thank you, President,
We are deeply concerned about the systematic and widespread human rights
violations in Iraq. We have raised this issue many times before UN
relevant bodies and are still of the firm belief that the situation
requires special attention by this Council.
It is appalling that international crimes committed by powerful states
against other states are too often erased from humanity’s collective
memory and replaced with propaganda to cover up the millions of lives
destroyed and extinguished through these crimes. We call attention to
the 2003 illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq for which not a single
person responsible has been brought to justice. The victims of that
heinous war are entitled to the protections of international law and
cannot be removed from our collective memory.
Therefore, International-Lawyers and Geneva International Centre for Justice repeat their calls to establish an international, independent
Commission of inquiry to investigate all human rights violations in Iraq
since 2003 in order to hold all perpetrators accountable.
It is also appalling that the Iraqi government continues to evade calls
for accountability for thousands of disappeared persons by branding them
as terrorists solely on the basis that they derive from certain ethnic
regions in Iraq.
Human rights defenders in Iraq are subjected to abductions and
assassinations merely for exercising their fundamental rights.
Impunity enables these violations to persist and we repeat our call upon
the Council to take all necessary measures to stop these grave
violations.
President Donald Trump is weighing
closing the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as intelligence agencies in recent
weeks have picked up specific threats against American forces in Iraq,
including against the embassy itself, according to three people with
knowledge of the intelligence.
Over the past week, senior U.S.
officials have told their Iraqi counterparts that they will close the
massive, heavily fortified embassy within days unless Iraqi leaders do
more to rein in the Iranian-backed militias lobbing rockets at and
otherwise threatening the diplomatic outpost, people familiar with the
issue said.
It’s not clear how imminent any potential attack might be, or whether it
is the driving factor in the administration’s recent push to reduce the
number of U.S. troops in Iraq. But the situation bears echoes of
another fraught incident: the attack on the U.S. consulate and another
facility in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including U.S.
Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Looking at the same basic details, Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr insists that civil war will break out in Iraq if this issue isn't addressed while an unsigned piece at ALJAZEERA insists that the Iranian government will see it as a sign of impending war with Iran if US diplomats pull out of Iraq.
How will you read the tea leaves?
Study war no more
Lay down your arms
Study war no more
Lay 'em down lay 'em down now
Study war no more
Lay down your arms
Study war no more
Newsreels rattle the Nazi dread
The able-bodied have shipped away
Molly McGee gets her tea-leaves read
You'll be married in a month they say
"These leaves are crazy!
Look at this town there's no men left!
Just frail old boys and babies
Talking to teacher in the treble clef"
She plants her garden in the spring
She does the winter shovelling
Tokyo Rose on the radio
She says she's leavin' but she don't go
Out of the blue just passin' thru
A young flight sergeant
On two weeks leave
Says "Molly McGee no one else will do!"
And seals the tea-leaf prophecy
Oh these nights are strong and soft
Private passions and secret storms
Nothin' about him ticks her off
And he looks so cute in his uniform
She plants her garden in the spring
He does the winter shovelling
But summer's just a sneeze
In a long long bad winter cold
She says "I'm leavin' here" but she don't go
"Sleep little darlin'!
This is your happy home
Hiroshima cannot be pardoned!
Don't have kids when you get grown
Because this world is shattered
The wise are mourning
The fools are joking
Oh what does it matter?
The wash needs ironing
And the fire needs stoking"
She plants her garden in the spring
He does the winter shovelling
The three of 'em laughing 'round the radio
She says "I'm leavin' here" but she don't go
She plants her garden in the spring
They do the winter shovelling
They sit up late and watch the
Johnny Carson show
She says "I'm leavin' here but she don't go
-- "Tea Leaf Prophecy," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her CHALKMARK IN A RAINSTORM.
Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Set Up" went up last night. The following sites updated:
That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "The Set Up" which went up Monday night. My latest review? Sunday we did "Roundtable" at THIRD:
Jim: Kat, where's the Alicia Keys review?
Kat: I
knew you were going to put me on the spot. I knew it. I was going to
do it a weekend ago but the the RBG news left me too depressed to write
it. Then I was going to do it this weekend but I was just so tired and
also just in a Joni Mitchell mood. She's all I listened to this week.
Her entire collection except for her first album. CLOUDS through SHINE
was my weekend. Maybe next weekend.
I'm lazy. On a good day, I'm lazy. These days? I'm tired. I'm tired of the looming election, I'm tired of living in the midst of a pandemic. I try to stay positive but it gets harder and harder. And the weekend before I just wanted to sleep and was upset about RBG. This past weekend, I just had no energy and the only thing that got me through was listening to every Joni Mitchell album except for her first one. (Her first one isn't a bad one, it's just not one -- sound wise -- that I want to listen to as an album.)
Monday, September 28, 2020. Joe Biden gets caught in another lie
while the US government talks shutting down the Baghdad-based embassy.
Is
Joe Biden making a mistake in not campaigning? Yes, he is. The lie
has been that he's doing this due to the Coronavirus. But if that were
true, if Joe were trying to set a good example, wouldn't his wife be off
the campaign trail?
The
idiot on the Democratic Party side needs to be called out. Instead,
she gets to spew and spew. RISING really doesn't do a good job of
holding people accountable.
Joe Biden does not have firm support and poor debate performances can send 'supporters' fleeing. Liz Peek (FOX NEWS) notes:
Can the Democrat candidate survive 90 minutes of an unscripted, fast-paced presidential debate
without claiming to have been in the Senate for 180 years or putting
the COVID-19 death toll at 200 million Americans, goofs he has made in
recent days? Can he endure the challenges sure to come from President Trump without wandering off into the ether?
Delaware State University has denied that Joe Biden has ever been a
student there — after the presidential candidate’s claim that he “got
started” at the historically black college.
The 77-year-old Democrat made his claim while praising historically
black colleges and universities (HBCUs) during a town hall event last
October before the South Carolina Democratic primary, video shows.
“I got started out of a HBCU, Delaware State,” he told pupils at Wilson High School in Florence, which was founded in 1866 by the Freedmen’s Bureau for Black children seeking an education.
Hmm.
Remember when Anita Dunham and Joe Biden tried to weaponize a
transcript to discredit a woman who was accusing Joe of assault? Anthony Zenkus Tweets:
I am a recognized expert in gender-violence and trauma.
I have trained over 1,000 judges in NY State.
I have been a director at two rape crisis centers.
I have known hundreds of victims throughout my career.
I have heard Tara Reade. I know Tara Reade. And #IBelieveTaraReade.
Tara
is highly credible. I remember when St. Beau Biden shut down the man
stating he had sex with Barack Obama -- Saint Beau used his position as
an AG. I have no idea whether or not the man was telling the truth.
But one man went public with claims and a Democratic AG stepped forward
when the press was finally interested -- stepped forward and snuffed
interest. Remind you of supposed fallout that was going to come from
Tara's previous court testimonies? Interesting how that story went no
where after it was used to attack Tara's reputation. It's a pattern.
We should all grasp that it's a pattern.
Berkley
Brannon announced, as Tara's story was gaining traction, that he was
launching an investigation into her credentials. That was May. It's
four months later. How long does it take to investigate a resume? It
was a nice distraction, an easy way to get an already reluctant press to
walk away from a story they never wanted to cover.
Turning to Iraq, Sunday Isabel Coles and Michael R. Gordon (WALL ST. JOURNAL) broke the news
regarding a line in the sand -- or threat -- the US government was
drawing/making in Iraq, "The Trump administration has warned Iraq it is
preparing to shut down
its embassy in Baghdad unless the Iraqi government stops a spate of
rocket attacks by Shiite militias against U.S. interests, Iraqi and U.S.
officials said Sunday, in a fresh crisis in relations between the two
allies." Farhad Alaaldin (RUDAW) explains, "Baghdad’s Green Zone, which includes the American embassy, was subjected
to 19 attacks with Katyusha rockets and mortars in September alone,
some of which reached their targets inside the embassy’s vicinity, in
addition to 25 IED attacks on convoys serving international coalition
forces and an attack on a British diplomatic convoy in Baghdad on 15th
of September." John Davison (REUTERS) notes, "The concern among the Iraqis is that
pulling out diplomats would be followed quickly by military action
against forces Washington blamed for attacks." Louisa Loveluck, Missy Ryan and John Hudson (WASHINGTON POST) add:
“We
hope the American administration will reconsider it,” Ahmed Mulla
Talal, a spokesman for Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, said Sunday.
“There are outlaw groups that try to shake this relationship, and
closing the embassy would send a negative message to them.”
Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo notified Kadhimi of the plans Saturday night,
according to an official familiar with the matter. Two Western officials
in Baghdad said their country’s diplomatic missions had been informed
of the plan.
It was unclear on Sunday whether the White House had signed off on a
possible departure and what might prompt the Trump administration to
shelve the plan. If the administration moves forward, closing the
embassy is expected to take 90 days, a window that would give Washington
the opportunity to reassess the decision, said a diplomat familiar with
the situation.
Is it a real possibility or just a
weak threat that won't be backed up? How serious is the US government
right now? That's open to debate apparently. Justine Coleman (THE HILL) notes:
It was unclear on Sunday whether the White House had signed off on a
possible departure and what might prompt the Trump administration to
shelve the plan. If the administration moves forward, closing the
embassy is expected to take 90 days, a window that would give Washington
the opportunity to reassess the decision, said a diplomat familiar with
the situation.
And it's not just the US government
calling out the attacks. Strangely enough, Moqtada al-Sadr has been
making noises about this throughout last week. YENISAFAK notes, "On Friday, al-Sadr called for an investigation into repeated attacks on
foreign missions in Iraq and bringing perpetrators to justice." MIDDLE EAST IN THE FIELD Tweets:
Muqtada Al-Sadr the famous Iraqi Shiite cleric spoke against rocket attacks on US embassy.
Iraqi
Shia cleric “Muqtada al-Sadr” called for an investigation into repeated
attacks on foreign missions in Iraq and bringing the perpetrators to
justice.
The call came after two Shia groups (Hezbollah & al-Nujaba) threatened to launch more attacks against #US forces in #Iraq.
The U.S. embassy in Iraq announced on Sunday that it will conduct a
series of emergency tests and drills after a recent series of attacks.
"Over the course of the next two days, the U.S. embassy will be
conducting a series of tests and drills of our emergency procedures and
equipment," the embassy said in a statement.
The statement did not give further details about the drills, but
observers believe such drills are meant to enhance the protection of the
embassy to prevent the landing of mortar rounds and rockets.
Melanie's first big hit, "Lay Down (Candles In The Rain)." Here she is, from December 29th, performing another of her hits "Brand New Key" on Jools Holland's BBC show.
And here's Melanie performing one of my favorites of her more recent songs "Smile."
Black Mountain is now home to a sizable tribute to its biggest star:
the singer Roberta Flack, who was born in the town in 1937 and lived
there until she was nine. Flack rose to international fame as songs like
“The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face,” “Killing Me Softly with His
Song,” and “Feel Like Makin’ Love” propelled her to consecutive Record
of the Year Grammy wins, in 1973 and ’74, and this year she was awarded
the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.
In late July, a classic ’70s visage of Flack was painted across the
west side of Black Mountain Brewing on Broadway Avenue. The artwork was
the brainchild of Scott Nurkin, a Chapel Hill-based painter who heads
the North Carolina Musician Murals Project. Brewery owner John
Richardson jumped at the chance to host the mural, calling it “an
important opportunity for Black Mountain to celebrate a strong Black
woman and embrace a piece of our history that, for some reason, we
haven’t.” Learn more at musicianmuralsproject.com.
The artists who received 2020 Lifetime Achievement Awards Grammys will be saluted with a PBS TV special next month.
Great Performances: GRAMMY Salute to Music Legendswill air October 16 at 9 p.m. ET, hosted by producer Jimmy Jam. The honorees, announced earlier this year, include Chicago, Roberta Flack, the late Isaac Hayes and John Prine, rocker Iggy Pop, rap icons Public Enemy and late gospel/early rock 'n' roll pioneer Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
Roberta has many great and wonderful songs but I think my favorite is "Oasis."
It's a great song. Speaking of great, Laura Nyro remains one of the all time greats. She has a legacy of songs that make her a great artist. (Even ROLLING STONE had to include her on their new Best 500 Albums of All Time list.) DUKE BASKETBALL REPORT notes:
That’s kind of how we felt after we came across Laura Nyro.
That’s a name we’ve been aware of for a long time but without knowing any of her music...or so it seemed.
As it turns out, she wrote a lot of songs that are very
well known but recorded by other people. Active mostly in the late ‘60s
and intermittently after that, this woman was a phenomenal talent. She
wrote in American genres but her voice and her lyrics are what set her
apart. Her lyrics are brilliant and her voice is powerful.
We’re going to link one of her original songs which you may or may not have heard before called Stone Soul Picnic, and also a cover of Jimmy Mack, the classic by Martha and the Vandellas, which is a superb cover.
My favorite Laura song? I have many. But for today, I'll go with "Once It Was Alright Now (Farmer Joe)."
Friday, September 25, 2020. As usual, we look at some of the
candidates running for president and we also note how the current mess
(crisis?) re: the Supreme Court was completely predictable.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the issue that ends all
arguments. The fact that the Democrats mishandled this situation so
badly is one of the reasons they have deified the late justice Ginsburg.
They have to divert attention from the mess they created. The federal
courts would not play such a large political role if the Democrats were
serious about winning and keeping legislative majorities. When Barack
Obama was president they lost more than 900 seats in state legislatures,
the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The loss of the Senate was particularly devastating. Ginsburg should
have stepped down when Obama still had the Democratic Party control
needed to nominate a replacement. Instead, the 80-year old who had
already been diagnosed with cancer was supremely arrogant. In 2014
Ginsburg was dismissive of prudent calls for her to retire and said so publicly.
“So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you
would rather see on the court than me?” Thanks to her hubris, Democrats
are now caught in a mixture of panic and overly deferential mourning.
[. . .]
The Republican Supreme Court super majority is a very bad thing for the
country. But it all came about because of the Democratic Party. The
sooner voters abandon them and build progressive politics for
themselves, the better. The people must save themselves and the first
thing they can do is detach themselves from the losers. Giving money to
their PACs is a waste and so is idolizing a dead justice. For that
matter, idolizing a dead political party is equally foolish.
RBG
should have stepped down. And this we must honor her dying wish
nonsense? I'm sorry, when did the US become the Make A Wish
Foundation? And when did an 87-year-old woman become a young child
whose life would be tragically cut short?
Ruth did not own a seat
on the court. She cannot 'will it' to anyone. If she wanted a say, the
answer was to resign, not hold on when she clearly was incapacitated.
She lived a long life -- longer than women who live in poverty, as we
noted in "Ruth Badger Ginsburg (Ava and C.I.)"
-- she made decisions that we are now stuck dealing with. She was no
saint and this problem we now address is one of her own making.
As
some began to accept reality, people got nervous about how the Dems in
the Senate would handle a nominee from US President Doanld Trump. John Bresnahan and Marianne Levine (POLITICO) report
on the panic over the realization that Ranking Member on the Judiciary
Committee Dianne Feinstein might not be up to the job. She is 87 years
old, for example, the same age that RBG died at. From the report:
Some Democrats privately fear that Feinstein could mishandle the situation and hurt their chances of winning back the majority.
Feinstein sometimes gets confused by reporters’ questions, or will
offer different answers to the same question depending on where or when
she’s asked. Her appearance is frail. And Feinstein's genteel demeanor,
which seems like it belongs to a bygone Senate era, can lead to trouble
with an increasingly hard-line Democratic base uninterested in
collegiality or bipartisan platitudes.
[. . .]
A Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a
group of Feinstein’s colleagues want Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) or
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to serve as the top Democrat on the
Judiciary panel for the upcoming nomination hearings, which are expected
to be extraordinarily contentious. This senator is worried that
potential missteps by Feinstein could cost Democrats seats.
Sorry,
people, she's the Ranking Member. It's the role she was given and I
don't see her saying, "Here, take the baton." I really don't see her
saying that. Back to the article:
Other Democrats privately said there have been complaints to party
leaders that Feinstein is not capable of handling the Judiciary post in
the current situation. Some of these senators said Feinstein should have
retired rather than run for reelection in 2018 at age 85. Feinstein’s
age was an issue in that campaign and was raised repeatedly in news
reports, but she defeated Democrat Kevin de Leon by almost 10 points.
Wait,
you mean we wouldn't be in this situation right now if Dianne hadn't
run for re-election or if a bunch of reactionary (and some xenophobic)
jerks (most not even in California -- meaning they couldn't vote in the
race) hadn't attacked Kevin Leon? We supported Kevin here. We pointed
out Dianne had already lost her grip on reality and that either she
would be 91 at the end of her term or leave office early -- possibly
due to death.
I didn't want Dianne in the Senate to begin with.
So don't come crying to me over the mess you made on the carpet. This
was all seeable if you only opened your damn eyes. Rebecca noted in her
January 12, 2006 piece on the Alito hearing (which NYT linked to and
remains one of her most popular posts) "alito hearings: like really bad sex:"
diane feinstein, to name 1 of the worst offenders, could shoot
scattershot (although she acted as though she were tossing out lillies
throughout the hearings) in the other days but on the final day, she
didn't need to be bringing up new issues. this is where you make the
case to the people. not where you suddenly introduce a new topic.
and
for some 1 who interrupted ted kennedy repeatedly the day prior as he
asked about caps, wasn't it strange that she didn't have a question on
that? when kennedy was speaking yesterday, she couldn't stop
interrupting. today? she's moved on.
miss diane gets my vote for
most useless and i'm not fan of kohl. but miss diane was supposed to be
fighting for women and instead we got a timid school marm trying to get
the rowdy class to like her.
it's not just her. that's a point
c.i. made tonight in the roundtable. c.i. pointed out that arlen specter
couldn't stop treating her like she was a 'special' and not a real
senator. he referred to her 'dramatic entrance.' there was another
specific example c.i. brought up but i'm forgetting it now. but the
point is, she is treated that way by others on the committee.
as an adult, she should ask them to cut it out. instead she seems tickled by the patronizing attitude.
i'm
looking for the non-action figure miss diane. she comes non-fully
poseable. she's in a seated postion. you can extend her legs or bend
them depending upon whether you want her to sit in a chair or to sit on
the floor. she wears a lovely dress with several layers. she comes with
white gloves and the cutest little purse that matches her hat, her belt
and her shoes. the non-action figure has a silly grin pasted on its face
and is called 'miss diane, girl senator.'
the tea set is purchased separately.
Miss
Dianne, Girl Senator. And Ted was furious about Dianne interrupting in
the middle of his questioning, his time that he was using to build to a
point that feckless Dianne destroyed. That was 2006 and Ted wasn't
hiding how he felt, I was in a room with seven other people after that
day's hearing where Ted unloaded on how incompetent Dianne was in that
hearing.
So you cheered on a woman who, when
functioning, was an imbecile and now she's way too old and way too
incompetent and we need strength so suddenly you're concerned?
Or as they say in DEATH BECOMES HER, "Now a warning?"
This was all predictable -- no crystal ball required.
That's
Ruth's death, that's Dianne's incompetence. This moment built slowly
and over time but people didn't want to get honest and face reality.
That's why we are where we are now.
And more lies
aren't going to help. Pretending that RBG's 'dying wish' matters is a
lie. There's nothing in the Constitution about that. There's no law
and there's no custom.
Am I thrilled at where we are
in this moment? Hell no. But as someone who worked to avoid this
moment, I hope to hell we can at least make this miserable moment a
teachable moment and learn from it.
But maybe there are
no teachable moments to a public that's become fixated on lies and
'tactics' and thinks the ends justify the means? The Democratic Party,
my party, has long been headed to the gutter but certainly we moved a
lot quicker once we brought David Brock into the fold. What he did to
Anita Hill was unacceptable and his so-called 'confession' -- in ESQUIRE
article form or later in the book -- was not a confession. It was
dishonest and self-serving and left out the fact that he got his
feelings hurt when his blond gal-pals (you know who I mean) would make
homophobic statements. They were cruel and racist women but he was fine
with that and glad to make them his hags until they dished a little too
much about gay people in the same hateful way they talked about people
of color.
David didn't leave the GOP, he was exiled.
And
not only were we stupid enough to embrace him (Hey, Naomi Wolf, I'm
looking at your crazy ass), we put him in positions of power, funded
him, so he could bring his sewer tactics over from the GOP and use them
for 'our side.'
That's not my side.
And it shouldn't be the Democratic Party's side. But it is and that's where we're at now.
That's
a new commercial from Howie Hawkins who is running to be the next
president of the United States on the Green Party ticket. Can you watch
it and be honest? Because it has happened twice.
And somehow, everyone's supposed to just accept it? Pretend like 2016 didn't happen?
You ignore reality at your own peril -- RBG's death should make that very clear.
But
so many ignore it. Some are such David Brock-ers that they even create
lies to pretend Joe Biden wasn't the Iraq War cheerleader (and bully)
that he was. And, goodness knows, no one wants to talk about how Iraq
fell apart during Barack's presidency and how Joe was in charge of
Iraq. It wasn't the drawdown of US troops, it was Joe backing Nouri
al-Maliki for a second term when the Iraqi people voted him out of
office in their 2010 election. Joe shows up in Iraq, after The Erbil
Agreement is set and tells the Iraqis some stupid story about Ireland
that's got nothing to do with their own situation.
However, when Biden phoned up the two leaders that week, he did not
stick to the agreed line. Instead, he told Maliki that the United States
would support him remaining as prime minister, and he told Allawi that
he should accept Maliki as PM. In the Arabic media, there was confusion
as to why the United States and Iran should both choose Maliki as prime
minister, and this fuelled conspiracy theories about a secret deal
between those two countries.
When I met Rafi, he was incredulous: “How come one week the U.S. was
telling everyone that Maliki should step down and the next week telling
Maliki he should be PM?” He went on: “Why is the U.S. picking the prime
minister? This is Iraq. This is our country. We have to live here. And
we care passionately about building a future for our children.” He was
deeply upset.
Biden visited Iraq at the end of August 2010. By
then, Hill had been replaced as ambassador by Jim Jeffrey. In internal
meetings, one U.S. adviser argued that Maliki was “our man”: He would
give us a follow-on Status of Forces Agreement to keep a small
contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq after 2011; he was a nationalist; and
he would fight the Sadrists. Furthermore, the official claimed that
Maliki had promised him that he would not seek a third term. “Maliki is
not our friend,” replied another official, Jeff Feltman, the assistant
secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, exasperated at the
delusional nature of the discussion. But Biden had been persuaded by the
arguments that there was no one but Maliki who could be prime minister
and that he would sign a new security agreement with the United States.
The Obama administration wanted to see an Iraqi government in place
before the U.S. mid-term elections in November. Biden believed the
quickest way to form a government was to keep Maliki as prime minister,
and to cajole other Iraqis into accepting this.
“Iraqiya genuinely fear Maliki,” General O explained. They were
scared that he would accuse them of being terrorists or bring charges of
corruption against them, and would arrest them. Maliki had accused Rafi
of being the leader of a terrorist group, for instance—allegations that
were totally unfounded. General O described how Maliki had changed so
much over the past six months. He had become more sectarian and
authoritarian. Iraqis had reason to fear him.
I tried to explain
the struggle between secularists and Islamists, and how many Iraqis
wanted to move beyond sectarianism. But Biden could not fathom this. For
him, Iraq was simply about Sunnis, Shia and Kurds.
I tried
another tack: “It is important to build belief in the democratic process
by showing people that change can come about through elections—rather
than violence. The peaceful transfer of power is key—it has never
happened in the Arab World.” At the very least, either Maliki or
Talabani needed to give up his seat; otherwise, they would both think
they owned the seats. Biden did not agree. He responded that there were
often elections in the United States that did not bring about any
change.
Biden’s easy smile had evaporated. He was clearly
irritated by me. “Look, I know these people,” he went on. “My
grandfather was Irish and hated the British. It’s like in the Balkans.
They all grow up hating each other.”
The conversation ended, as
we had to head over to the meeting with Iraqiya members. Some were in
suits, others were wearing their finest traditional robes. There were
Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Turkmen Shia, Kurds and a Christian. The full
tapestry of Iraqi society was sitting facing us—distinguishable only by
their dress, clearly showing us the sort of Iraq they wanted to live in.
Biden
started off smiling: “I know you people. My grandfather was Irish and
hated the British.” Everyone turned toward me, the Brit. The Iraqis were
grinning, expecting there was going to be a good spat between Brits and
Americans. How could I stop Biden making a totally inappropriate
comment about them all being Sunnis and hating Shia? Thinking on my
feet, I said, “Don’t look at me, Mr. Vice President, I am not the only
Brit in the room.” One of the Iraqis piped up: “I have a British
passport.”
Biden lost his train of thought and moved on. He said
that one of his predecessors, Al Gore, had technically won more votes in
the 2000 presidential election, but for the good of America had stepped
back rather than keep the country in limbo while fighting over the
disputed vote-count.
Allawi pretended not to understand that
Biden was suggesting he give up his claim to have first go at trying to
form the government, letting Maliki remain as prime minister. The
meeting finished. After we left, I was sure the Iraqis would be
wondering why on earth Biden had mentioned his Irish grandfather and Al
Gore. If only President Obama had paid attention to Iraq. He, more than
anyone, would understand the complexity of identities, I thought—and
that people can change. But his only interest in Iraq, it appeared, was
in ending the war.
Be very still and silent for a
moment and I think you can hear Iraq collectively telling Joe Biden to
f**k off every time he whines that Donald Trump might not accept the
election results this year. He overturned an election in Iraq and now
he wants to be a hypocrite and worry that someone else might not accept
the results?
Howie participated in an event in the Bronx with Margaret Kimberley.
Howie's
not the only one running for the office of president. Along with Joe
Biden and Donald Trump, Jo Jorgesen is running. She's the Libertarian
Party's presidential candidate.
Maybe that should be a slogan for her campaign? Unlike the other Joe?
Jo is out and about, interacting with voters. Sitting down for unscripted and freewheeling interviews. She's a real candidate.
Joe Biden's become the veal candidate -- fattened up in his cage.
Unlike the other Joe in the race, Jo Jorgensen can answer as to who she'd put on the Supreme Court if she had that power.
Jorgensen issues list of potential U.S. Supreme Court picks
Libertarian for president Dr. Jo Jorgensen chooses liberty-minded jurists
GREENVILLE, S.C.; 9/23/2020 – The Libertarian Party
and its Presidential candidate Dr. Jo Jorgensen join the nation in
mourning the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She was a dauntless supporter of civil liberties, and her close
friendship with her ideological opponent Antonin Scalia demonstrated her
respect for civility, despite differences.
President Trump and Senate Republicans now aim to replace Justice
Ginsberg before the election. If Democrats succeed in stopping them, the
next president will be faced with the immediate task of nominating a
justice to the Supreme Court.
Today Dr. Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian for president, named a list of
legal experts that she would consider for this nomination, should she be
elected.
“We need justices who, unlike the majority of those appointed to our
highest court over the past 100 years, will strictly uphold our
Constitution,” said Jorgensen. “We must restore the limits that our
Founders imposed on federal authority and rigorously defend both
individual liberty and property rights.”
The following individuals are on Dr. Jorgensen’s list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees:
Richard Epstein is a law professor and director of the Classical Liberal Institute at New York University. A study published in The Journal of Legal Studies identified
him as the 12th most often-cited legal scholar of the 20th century. He
is known for his prolific writings on subjects pertaining to law,
economics, classical liberalism, and libertarianism.
Judge Andrew Napolitano was a New Jersey Superior Court judge and hosted the daily TV talk show Freedom Watch on Fox Business News. He is a syndicated columnist published in Reason, The Washington Times and elsewhere and is a frequent commentator and news analyst on Fox.
Randy Barnett is on the faculty of the Georgetown
University Law Center and a senior fellow at Cato Institute. His eleven
published books include Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. He was involved in the legal challenge to Obamacare — National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius.
Clint Bolick is an associate justice on the Arizona
Supreme Court. In 1991 Bolick co-founded the Institute for Justice. In
2007, he became VP of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute where he was
a frequent critic of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Eugene Volokh has been a UCLA law professor since
1994 and is the originator of the prominent legal blog, the Volokh
Conspiracy. He clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit and
for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Janice Rogers Brown served as Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and was an
associate justice of the California Supreme Court. In a speech to the
University of Chicago Law School Federalist Society she said, “Where
government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates,
and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies.”
Dana Berliner is the senior vice president and
litigation director at the Institute for Justice. She was co-counsel
representing the homeowner in Kelo v. New London, the notorious case
where SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain could be used by a city for the
sole reason of increasing its property tax base.
Anastasia Boden is a senior attorney at Pacific
Legal Foundation specializing in litigating against anti-competitive
licensing laws and laws that restrict freedom of speech. She graduated
from law school at Georgetown where she was Research Assistant to
Professor Randy Barnett.
Timothy Sandefur is the vice president for
litigation at the Goldwater Institute and an adjunct scholar at the Cato
Institute. He’s the author of numerous books including Frederick Douglas: Self Made Man and The Right to Earn a Living. He argued against Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Scott Bullock is President and General Counsel of the Institute for Justice. He was co-counsel in Kelo v. New London.
James Ostrowski has practiced trial and
appellate work for more than 35 years. He was an attorney for Ron Paul
and is the chief organizer of libertymovement.org. He writes extensively
on a variety of topics for the Mises Institute and has published four
books, including Progressivism: a Primer on the Idea Destroying America.
Alan Gura was co-counsel for the plaintiff in
District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to own
a firearm. It was one of two landmark constitutional cases that he
argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court. TheNational Law Journal named him one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.”
Jonathan Turley teaches torts, criminal procedure
and constitutional law at George Washington University Law School. He is
ranked the 38th most cited public intellectual in a study by Judge
Richard Posner. He received the columnist of the year award from the Aspen Institute and The Week for his columns on civil liberties.
Damien Schiff is a senior attorney at Pacific Law
Foundation where he successfully argued the precedent-setting property
rights case, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency when he was 33
years old. He was nominated to the Court of Federal Claims but not
confirmed.
Clark Neily was co-counsel for the plaintiff in
District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to
bear arms. He was a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice before
joining the Cato Institute in 2017, where he is Vice President for
Criminal Justice overseeing civil asset forfeiture, police
accountability, gun rights, overcriminalization and constitutional law.
Nadine Strossen was the youngest person ever to head
the ACLU. She is a staunch First Amendment advocate and a founder of
Feminists for Free Expression. Among her books is “Hate: Why We Should
Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship”.
Jacob Hornberger was Director of Programs for the
Foundation for Economic Education and founded the Future of Freedom
Foundation where he serves as president He placed second in the
delegate count for the 2020 LP nomination for president.
Don Willett serves on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals and was previously a member of the Supreme Court of Texas.
According to the outlet SCOTUSblog, “Willett views the role of judges as
protecting individual liberty by striking down laws that infringe on
it.” Willett has also been named by President Donald Trump as a
potential Supreme Court nominee.
Again, unlike the other Joe, Jo Jorgensen's a presidential candidate who will talk about the tough issues and do so clearly.
Gloria
La Riva, unlike Joe Biden, is not afraid to tell the people what she
believes. She doesn't whisper to Wall Street one thing -- pillow talk
-- and tell the American people something else.
Gloria's
running on the Party for Socialism and Liberation's ticket. People in
fifteen states will be able to vote for her and have their vote counted.
Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman gain ballot access in Rhode Island
As of Friday, September 11, Rhode Island becomes the fifteenth state
to welcome socialist candidates Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman to the
ballot for the United States presidential election on November 3. This
ballot access was achieved by obtaining close to 1600 signatures — 600
more than the state’s requirement.
PSL members residing in Massachachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut joined efforts to organize the petition gathering. Many
organizers traveled multiple hours daily in order to contribute, some
while fasting over the month in observance of Black August. Collection
of petitioned signatures was also challenging due to the Covid-19
pandemic. Canvassers were sure to adhere to physical distancing
protocols such as wearing masks and sanitizing equipment.
Petitioning was done at local Farmers’ markets, Flea markets and at
Kennedy Plaza, the main bus station of Providence. The canvassing pitch,
“Would you like to help put a socialist on the ballot?” was often met
with a resounding “hell yes!” In working class neighborhoods such as
Central Falls and Pawtucket, socialism and La Riva/Freeman’s election
manifesto were enthusiastically discussed by Black and brown residents.
As a Black mother signed the petition, her young son asked “What is
socialism?” She responded, “It is for your future.”
Many residents who supported ballot access for La Riva/Freeman were
not allowed to vote despite living and working in RI. Immigrants are
disqualified from voting making them unable to provide a valid signature
on any ballot petition. Organizers noted one resident who took a flyer,
read through the program and nodded. When they signed the petition,
they left the address column empty due to not having a home. Without a
home, their petition will be rejected. These examples are not
exceptions, but evidence of a rule. The United States electoral system
is built to prevent working and oppressed people from participating
politically.
Petitioning for ballot access was part of a larger goal for PSL
organizers to deepen relationships with working class struggles in RI.
Canvassers joined uprisings against police brutality and demonstrations
for rent cancellation. They took part in an event where educators
demanded a safe reopening of schools and another where residents spoke
out against the proposed destruction of Providence’s main transit hub.
Organizers were there to provide a broad socialist response to local
struggles. Rather than leaving the politics to the two capitalist
parties, fighting and winning is the alternative that putting socialism
on the ballot offers.
The 2020 election is unlike any in American history.
Donald Trump, surrounded by fascist aides, is threatening to appeal to the military and neo-Nazi groups to keep himself in office by use of force, raising the specter of dictatorship. Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, whose unofficial campaign slogan is "nothing will fundamentally change," are more fearful of social opposition than anything else and are hostile to mobilizing masses of people to fight fascism. Instead, they are running a right-wing campaign aimed at portraying Trump as insufficiently bellicose toward Russia and China. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America fecklessly tag behind Biden.
The death toll from the coronavirus pandemic has reached 200,000 in the US and nearly 1 million worldwide. The response of both parties in the US has been to force workers back to work and students back to school to fuel big business and boost Wall Street. Strikes and protests against unsafe conditions at workplaces and schools are growing, coalescing with opposition to the never ending spate of police murders that witnessed the largest nationwide demonstrations in decades.
The working class needs political leadership. Joseph Kishore and Norissa Santa Cruz launched their presidential campaign to fight to develop a revolutionary socialist leadership in the working class. For this reason, federal judges, Democratic and Republican alike, have denied them access to appear on the ballot. At Sunday's meeting, Kishore and Santa Cruz will address the current political crisis and lay out the programmatic response of the Socialist Equality Party.
At a White House press conference Wednesday evening, Trump was asked
whether he would “commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power
after the election.” He replied: “We’re going to have to see what
happens. You know, I have been complaining very strongly about the
ballots. And the ballots are a disaster.”
When his questioner persisted, Trump said, “You’ll have a very
peaceful trans—there won’t be a transfer frankly. There will be a
continuation.”
Trump’s determination to rapidly appoint a new Supreme Court justice
to fill the seat left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a critical
element of the unfolding criminal conspiracy. Trump intends to stack the
Supreme Court with lackeys who will rubber stamp his repudiation of the
election results. “I think this [the election] will end up in the
Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine
justices,” Trump said at the news conference.
That the preparations for an overthrow of the Constitution are well
advanced is now widely acknowledged. A column published Wednesday in the
Atlantic, headlined “The Election that Could Break America,”
outlines what it called a nightmare scenario for November 3, involving
the mobilization of right-wing vigilantes and the seizure of uncounted
ballots. The Atlantic references discussions within the White House over how to overturn the election results if they go against Trump:
According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and
national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to
bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground
states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a
justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state
legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to
choose a slate of electors directly.
In doing so, Trump would be acting on the basis of Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument in Bush v. Gore 20 years ago, when the Supreme Court intervened to shut down vote-counting in Florida and hand the election to Bush.
Trump is not running an election campaign. He is setting into motion a
plot to establish a presidential dictatorship. This is a continuation
of the entire conspiracy initiated with his June 1 speech threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military against domestic protests.
There is a staggering contrast between the ruthlessness with which
Trump and his co-conspirators are implementing their plans and the
fecklessness and cowardice of the Democratic Party and its presidential
candidate, Joe Biden. Even as Trump is planning to stack the Supreme
Court to facilitate his illegal seizure of power, the Democrats have
declared that there is nothing that can be done to stop Trump’s
appointment of another justice before the November election.
After Republican Senator Mitt Romney announced Tuesday that he would
support Trump's filling of the Ginsburg vacancy, the Democrats abandoned
their “resistance” strategy, such as it was, of finding four
Republicans who would break with Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell and oppose a confirmation vote.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has declared that “all options
are on the table,” but only after the Supreme Court nominee is
confirmed, and then only if the Democrats win control of both the Senate
and the White House. But the Supreme Court pick is central to Trump’s
strategy of maintaining his position in the White House.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who proclaimed that her
quiver was “full of arrows,” reached an agreement with Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin to extend funding for the federal government
until after the election, removing the threat of a government shutdown
in response to Trump’s effort to push through his Supreme Court
nomination.
With this craven capitulation, the Democrats are not only giving up a
seat on the Supreme Court, they are going a long way toward
surrendering to Trump’s coup.
Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said
on Wednesday that Trump is seeking “to discredit the votes of millions,
stack the Supreme Court to disenfranchise millions and perpetuate
himself in office,” warning that this is “how you see democracies end.”
Schiff’s only response, in addition to blaming “foreign assistance”
for Trump’s actions, was to propose legislation to restrain future
presidents. He expressed the hope that voters would “turn out in such
massive numbers that there’s a landslide repudiation of Trump and
Trumpism.”
The Constitution does not require that a presidential candidate
receive a landslide to unseat the incumbent. Schiff’s statement amounts
to a declaration that the Democrats will capitulate to Trump if Biden
secures anything less than an overwhelming victory.
But her response was merely to appeal to the military, stating that
she has been seeking assurance from Pentagon officials that they would
ensure a transfer of power if Trump refuses to concede. “To the attorney
general, secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and secretary of homeland security,” she said, “history is coming for
you, and you will have to make a choice.”
The pathetic response of the Democratic Party and its presidential
candidate to Trump’s conspiracy is determined, above all, by its fear
that any call for resistance would trigger a mass movement from below
that would get out of control and threaten the capitalist oligarchy.
The Democrats fear such a development more than anything. Their
entire focus over the past four years has been to divert popular
opposition to Trump behind the conflicts within the ruling class over
foreign policy, centered on the demand for more aggressive action
against Russia.
To subordinate the fight against Trump to the Democratic Party can lead only to a political catastrophe.
Beneath the political crisis in the United States, what is unfolding
is a massive confrontation between the corporate and financial
aristocracy, which controls both political parties, and the working
class. Trump’s coup plotting is entirely bound up with the ruling class
policy of “herd immunity”--the drive to force workers to continue
working and reopen schools amidst the expanding pandemic, and the
utilization of the pandemic to orchestrate a massive redistribution of
wealth to the rich.
For the working class, the fight against the pandemic, the massive
social crisis, the unending wave of police violence and the threat of
dictatorship is entirely bound up with the fight for socialism.
The critical issue now is the development of a mass movement of the
working class. The logic of the rapidly developing crisis poses before
working people the need to prepare for a political general strike.
Popular organizations, controlled by working people, should be
established in order to prepare resistance to Trump’s criminal
conspiracy.
The growing wave of strikes, protests and demonstrations—including
those sparked by the whitewashing yesterday of the police murder of
Breonna Taylor in Louisville—must coalesce into a general strike,
demanding Trump’s removal from office.
