170 Comments

Once again, I get to bang on about the 9th Amendment, because once again, a SCOTUS justice is banging on about rights supposedly not guaranteed by The Constitution. That's a half-truth. The right to choose under R v W is not an >enumerated< right - just as other rights the religious right oppose aren't enumerated. The 9th Amendment provides that our rights aren't limited to the enumerated rights - nor are the enumerated rights listed in order of importance. The wank-publicans would have us believe that when a judge legitimately recognizes a right validly under the 9th Amendment, they're "legislating from the bench." Yet they're not above cramming their Southern-fried religious heresies down our collective throats as law, saying they >believe< it's their "god given right" to do so. Well done, Prof Reich, on showing that garbage coming out of ol' Tweety's mouth! In a Mike Gibbons campaign ad for the OH primary, he states "Your rights don't come from government, they come from god." (That is, we have the same rights guaranteed to a serf in feudal times. Who gets to be god's presence on earth, huh ‽) A "big lie" that has been spread around by the religious right evangelicals for decades is that their religious freedom demands the laws reflect their belief, as they downplay the separation of church and state by simply denying they >believe< that such a separation exists within The Constitution, because it abridges their religious freedom. It only shows those self-proclaimed righteous folks don't give a single goddam what living hell they put others through, as long as the >believe< it will get them into their mythical heaven when they're goddam dead!

Expand full comment

DZK is absolutely right about the 9th amendment -- which becomes even more relevant if (as is likely the case) the Supreme Court's conservative majority goes along not only with Alito's decision to strike Roe v. Wade but also his logic, which is that privacy rights aren't in the Constitution. Mark my words: Privacy will be on the ballot in the midterms when the American public discovers that states could not only ban abortions but return to banning contraceptives, prohibiting gay marriage, barring interracial marriage, and criminalizing homosexuality.

Expand full comment

The ReThugs and the impartial SCOTUS will stop at nothing to take us backwards and undo all of the goodness we have done to give women the liberty to decide whether or not to have a child, gays the right to marry, and it won’t stop there. So discouraging. 😔 🌻

Expand full comment

Curiouser and curioser! The laws on the books can just be dropped, at the whim of an illegitimate takeover! Kind of like football.

Expand full comment

I knew there was a reason not to study law. It would be frustrating to see how messed up it all is, with little chance to remedy the gross unfairness.

Expand full comment

It's so cute how you think our amendments matter. Anything the elites want to do, they will. Like, if they want to sell more guns they will create an argument that the 2nd amendment is all about every citizens right to own whatever gun they want. In fact, that argument was born in the 60's and now is taken as sacrosanct freedom guaranteed by the constitution. On the flip side, abortion is somehow not a factor that prevents the pursuit of happiness, an ideal that IS guaranteed by the constitution...

Expand full comment

Abortion rights were settled law, and the thugs in control who packed the court want to distract people from looking at the obscene wealth inequality in America today. The so called inflation is caused by wealthy and corporations buying back their stock and inflating its value. Wages have not increased in 40 years, profit margins of many corporations are the highest they have been in 70 years. You are trying to be cute by disrespecting people on this forum when they try to approach a legal, non violent remedy to avoid living in a world where kids cannot safely attend school, and Black people can't even go to the store to buy food safely. There is nothing cute about trying to peacefully solve serious problems.

Expand full comment

It should never have gone there. The government has NO RIGHT interfering with medical doctors and their patients. PERIOD! The minute you rely on a judge to do something, another judge will undo it. Both parties, again, cop to this notion that judges cannot by unbiased, moreover, today they feel they shouldn't be?!?!?!?!?!? Sorry, but taking away the harsh penalties for opinionated judges is destroying us. For a fact, every SCOTUS except Eagan can and should be dismissed for behavior, as it is written in the constitution. Reich feels we can simply expand the court but this is another trick that will come back in 20 years to make us regret that thought, big time! All Robert's has done since he was appointed is go over settled law and reverse it, so where do you think they have the ability to do anything productive for our society that is not very temporary? We need amendments to fix this broken experiment in democracy, and without it, I may see the U.S. come to an end in my lifetime. If I don't, I would bet the farm my grandkids will. Because everyone is wrong and nobody is talking about what's right except for guys like Noam, Hedges, and the Diem25 movement in Europe. Neoliberalism must be ended immediately if we are to survive. And in case you don't know, Neoliberalism is what every member in our government supports (including Bernie and AOC), and is hated by the people more and more every day. Most people call it capitalism, but it's not. It's our brand of "capitalism", a word that merely means you have a monetary value system. Even Reich won't use the term Neoliberalism because he supports the system. By today's definitions we were socialists for 40 years, and it just so happens they were the most successful 40 decades in our history. FDR was not, but his entire cabinet was filled with socialists and communists and they made this country great. If we don't get back to that, we are finished as a nation. Do you know what happens to bloated, overextended and out of touch empires? If you read history, it ain't pretty...

Expand full comment

Nicholas ; I was around in the 60's and do not remember people wanting to have gun rights. Nobody experienced mass shootings, except those who went to war in Vietnam. It was not an issue. There was pushback by some who were angry and fed up. Later, there was Watts when Black people were extremely angry and deadly riots in L.A. and other cities, like Detroit. The 1968 National Democratic Convention on August 26 to 29 in Chicago, Illinois was violent, during a year of riots, political turbulence, and mass civil unrest. Martin Luther King was assassinated in April, and though segregation officially ended, racism and poverty continued to make life difficult for many blacks and poor whites. Women were fighting for contraception and other rights as well. People wanted Vietnam to end.

Expand full comment

I think you've misread my comment so let me put it another way and explain the details. Guitars outsold guns in the 60's and the gun industry wanted to sell more guns. So they invented this 2nd amendment argument in order to promote sales and get rid of the restrictions and mindset that kept them a cottage industry. Before Columbine guns had caught up to guitars in that 30 year span and afterwards, guns have outsold guitars by almost tenfold. And by now, all the NRA has to do is say "here they come for your guns", and they see a 10-15% spike in sales. All from the brainwashing media they've pumped into our society, targeting the least educated among us. It's basically on autopilot at this point and why in the aftermath of each mass shooting gun sales spike. I might have said "people", but I did not say "the people". Merely referring to some people, the one's that wanted to sell more guns...

Expand full comment

Nicholas ; When enough people have their children and grandchildren, nieces, nephews or any other people they care about gunned down, there might be a change. When tourism dies completely because nobody wants to risk coming here, there may be enough pressure on the party of Putin to help end this madness. The second amendment has been misread as well. Fox 'news' and other sources of misinformation are harming our Democracy and twisting the truth. Money as speech has distorted legitimacy and the laws. The fairness doctrine and the FCC have not protected the public from lies for a very long time and it shows.

Expand full comment

Too many people for that to happen. Half this country lives below the poverty line, but the other half doesn't. As long as that many people do well enough, nobody will care to do anything about the other half., They're too busy stealing from them...

And when the reports come out, $35k-$65k a year for a family of 3 is not middle class. Like the Byzantine Empire, an empire in decline from day 1, we simply change the rules, game or definitions to make the numbers look good.

Expand full comment

Cute-ness… are you serious? WTF? There is NOTHING cute about all of the lives lost yesterday so get outta here. GO AWAY TROLL

Expand full comment

Actually, by definition you are the one trolling, as well as gaslighting because I did not use that word the way you contextualize it. I merely called Robert's naivete, cute. Because it is.... You have nothing to say, you're just offended because your literacy level hasn't evolved to pick up on sarcasm. You then posted nothing that has anything to do with the conversation. Don't believe me? Ask your grandkids to explain what a troll is... I have a point and made it very well. The problem here is exactly what I allude to in some of my examples. You would be one of the dem's energized base. Deluded, upset, and somehow not at all at your own choices for leaders. So go ahead and attack me, the guy telling the truth you can't even process. Because Robert can disagree with me, but he can't prove me wrong.

Expand full comment

How old are you? My guess is about four. Waaaaaay to young for the ‘net. Be gone, troll.

Expand full comment

Yes, our courts often forget the 9th Amendment as they ignore the 14th. The point of an amendment is that those amendments have as much weight as the original document because that was supposed to be the way the Constitution could remain relevant. That's why the whole idea of "originalism" is nuts and just plain wrong. The founders never expected the Constitution to be cut into stone, unchangeable and only interpreted in one way. Our current justices clearly either had a bad class in the Constitution or are deliberately ignoring the amendments because they have already decided how they will rule on cases before even hearing them, the Constitution be damned. R.Sheets

Expand full comment

I think their working definition of "originalism" is, "I can rule however I want and no one can do anything about it." I recall a case during the Obama administration about presidential recess appointments, which are allowed by the plain wording of the Constitution. Mr. Originalist himself Antonin Scalia called the provision an anachronism, which he could presumably disregard.

Expand full comment

Agreed - on every point!

Expand full comment

The Florida version -- taking away our right to peaceably assemble, voting rights, installing a voter fraud police force, imposing a failed herd immunity COVID policy that causes sickness and lost lives, hostility to local government, support of anti-vax protestors despite evidence that vaccinations save lives, encouraging attacks on teachers and public health officials, a policy of don't say gay, initiatives demeaning LGBT people, and punishment for one of the state's largest employers -- Disney in retaliation for free speech, among others.

He did give us an ally. Mickey, Donald et al. Donald in Nutsyland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn20oXFrxxg

Don't want to get into the weeds of retaliation against whistleblowers, refusal to permit state officials to testify under subpoena, sending troops to the border, demeaning immigrants, mask wearers, refusing to call out Nazis.

Expand full comment

If I remember correctly, right after Jan 6th when many corporations suspended political donations to representatives who voted against certifying the election results and after the MLB pulled the all-star game out of Georgia over the restrictive voting laws, Mitch McConnell making comments to the effect that businesses need their nose out of politics. I'm surprised that many businesses aren't recognizing that their support of the Republican Party may come back to bite them. Once R v W is overturned nationally, many businesses in Red states may be facing unpleasant choices, particularly when trying to hire or retain employees in those states. I would bet that they're already starting to hear that many do not want to live in states like Texas. Disney's one of the first to be caught between their employees and customers and their Republican governor.

Expand full comment

They really >do< need their currently unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights down on that plantation!

Expand full comment

A very big defect in the Constitution, if not the biggest, is how difficult it is to amend thereby keeping it from being a "living document" that can be used to address modern societal issues. Could we get an amendment that would make it easier to amend?

Expand full comment

It's a double-edged sword. Think of what that would lead to in today's political environment. Amendments followed by repeals followed by repeal of repeals - you get the picture. Think of what would happen if it were easier to repeal the 13th & 14th amendments! (And you >know< what it took to get them ratified in the first place!) Actually, that kind of amendment process >does< exists at the state level, where some state constitutions have dozens and dozens of amendments. By contrast, for all its failings, The Constitution is simplicity itself.

Expand full comment

But… but… but…

Expand full comment

The reason we left The Articles of Confederation for our Constitution is that the weakness of central government to control our oppositional defiant States was insufficient for federal government to be able to collect taxes and allow our country to function solvently. If states rights advocates and radical Libertarian nuts like Rand Paul could blow our system up so they can make easy shady money by ripping off our public and the government, I don't doubt they would. Our currency has to work for commerce to function in a healthy way, and when we build infrastructure the roads and railroad tracks need to line up from state to state. The States have been uniting long enough, it's time for us to be united as a country as much as that would offend those in favor of lawlessness and mayhem.

Expand full comment

DZK has a good point. The Constitution is difficult to amend, but if it was easier, it may have been sabotaged by special interest, or deranged goofballs long ago. With the poor moral quality Republican Senators showed us by ignoring the evidence against Donald Trump during impeachment proceedings I don't trust them to even amend it, though if there were substantial demonstration of a sincere reform in moral attitude in congress, I think it needs to be rewritten into a modern Objective Realist document that does not defer to undetectable and unmeasurable things to guide us

Expand full comment

The US Constitution was put together fast, and the First Amendment came as the powers of Government were being suppressive of constructive criticism. It became apparent right off it was not a perfect document, thus we have a history of many amendments to chink up holes in the fast sloppy throw together piece of whatever it is. Madison and Jefferson had expected it to be updated at last every few generations. though crazy Christian Originalist just love whacking each other on the asses with Bibles and the Constitution, and we have been permanently stuck with the thing far beyond the time that any sensible educated population should have rewritten it into a modern Objective Realist document that that does not promote or justify clinical insanity by allowing people to believe indefensible arguments. The value of the first amendment was that it allowed for us to criticize bad governance, but the quirky religious throw back clause unfortunately allows nut cases to believe in about any crazy damn thing they want to with no objective substantiation to support the argument. I do not trust that being inserted into our constitution, making it a more ignorant and primitive document than the Magna Carta, because it rendered our supposedly independent colony unlikely to rise to level of modernism to be difficult for Brittan to manipulate. Franklin, a somewhat a self angulating narcissists, was much of the brains in the room at it's construction, and he was about as upper crust British as it gets, until he finally was forced under pressure to come live in the American colony, and his son a British Aristocrat disowned him as a traitor to Brittan. Franklin's first accomplishment was his ability to deliver our male so fast and on time one might have suspected it was being delivered by british intelligence or something. The Constitution in it's current form is our governing document, so it is better than nothing, but should have been rewritten so as God was no more than a witness to man's events long ago. We cannot refuse to abide by it, because that is technically treason, but we should really make great sarcastic and humorous on target criticisms of it's outrageous shortcomings, to chew away at it's reliance on faith in things educated men have not believed in for about a thousand years. Our culture was founded on biting british Augustinian style humor which has the value when properly employed to reduce it's target to a much lower level of credibility, and a document reliant on religious faith for moral guidance, is not credible since the discovery of science, and we have a first amendment right to level criticism of it. The point of Popes "The Rape of The Lock", an augustinian classic, is that a self centered brat girl having a lock of hair snipped of is not any more a matter of credible importance than her preoccupation with her silly farting lap dogs. We can only hope some great Union Peddler comes barreling out of nowhere to inspire us to reject the folly of basing beliefs on indefensible arguments!

Expand full comment

Sorry for the typos in my fast sloppy throw together comment. Franklin obviously delivered our mail.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the interesting history lesson on B. Franklin! I did not know his son had him branded as a traitor!

Expand full comment

He wouldn't even come back to the wife he married on first coming to the America. He proffered his London lifestyle to her and life in the Colonies. He only came back when he had to carry through with the deal he had made. I am no historian but "Crash Course" on Youtube changed my view of the man. He wrote anecdotally to make himself more lovable than the ashole he was to the family around him, and those he screwed in business. You are welcome to join me on Facebook or Twitter. And as always, thank you for taking time out to read what I have written!

Steven Johns

https://www.facebook.com/steven.johns.961/

https://twitter.com/StevenJ42592120

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 10, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Here's a cleaned up copy.

The US Constitution was put together fast, and the First Amendment came as the powers of Government were being suppressive of constructive criticism. It became apparent right off it was not a perfect document, thus we have a history of many amendments to chink up holes in the fast sloppy throw together piece of whatever it is. Madison and Jefferson had expected it to be updated at last every few generations. though crazy Christian Originalist just love whacking each other on the asses with Bibles and the Constitution, and we have been permanently stuck with the thing far beyond the time that any sensible educated population should have rewritten it into a modern Objective Realist document that that does not promote or justify clinical insanity by allowing people to believe indefensible arguments. The value of the first amendment was that it allowed for us to criticize bad governance, but the quirky religious throwback clause unfortunately allows nut cases to believe in about any crazy damn thing they want to with no objective substantiation to support the argument. I do not trust that being inserted into our constitution, making it a more ignorant and primitive document than the Magna Carta, because it rendered our supposedly independent colony unlikely to rise to level of modernism to be difficult for Brittan to manipulate. Franklin, a somewhat a self-angulating narcissist, was much of the brains in the room at its construction, and he was about as upper crust British as it gets, until he finally was forced under pressure to come live in the American colony, and his son a British Aristocrat disowned him as a traitor to Brittan. Franklin's first accomplishment was his ability to deliver our mail so fast and on time one might have suspected it was being delivered by British intelligence or something. The Constitution in its current form is our governing document, so it is better than nothing, but should have been rewritten so as God was no more than a witness to man's events long ago. We cannot refuse to abide by it, because that is technically treason, but we should really make great sarcastic and humorous on target criticisms of its outrageous shortcomings, to chew away at its reliance on faith in things educated men have not believed in for about a thousand years. Our culture was founded on biting British Augustinian style humor which has the value when properly employed to reduce its target to a much lower level of credibility, and a document reliant on religious faith for moral guidance, is not credible since the discovery of science, and we have a first amendment right to level criticism of it. The point of Popes "The Rape of The Lock", an Augustinian classic, is that a self-centered brat girl having a lock of hair snipped of is not any more a matter of credible importance than her preoccupation with her silly farting lap dogs. We can only hope some great Union Peddler comes barreling out of nowhere to inspire us to reject the folly of basing beliefs on indefensible arguments!

Steven Johns 5-9-22

Expand full comment

DZK ; Ridiculous that having their religious rights includes forcing them on others. An old ploy to take control of everyone else. They would say they are oppressed because others will not accept their attempt to oppress them. Their leader admires Putin, who does not give any kind of freedom to exist under his tyranny, and who casually kills innocents.

Expand full comment

In this context, I’m reminded of MTG’s comment that their “God is bigger.”

Expand full comment

Unfortunately DZK is right.

According to Alito, no right to privacy. Blackmun cited 14th amendment. Should have cited 9th amendment and gone into detail.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Goes to individual rights. Loving v Virginia. 1967. I also think that common law rights are bootstrapped. Right to vote. Right to travel. Presumption of innocence's? Voir dire of jury?

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/ninth-amendment/...

Other police power issues not expressed. Jury duty, obligation to pay taxes. Posse comitatus. Registration for draft.

Expand full comment

Thank you. Ironically, just for anyone who doesn't already know, common law is the English Common Law legacy of colonial times kept to maintain the early legal system. English Common Law is judge-enacted law codified from trial precedents. It is >truly< law legislated from the bench! It's also the >only< law on the books today that was "legislated from the bench."

Expand full comment

UPDATE: I just heard Alito tell one of the biggest, blackest lies yet on the issue of R v W. He claims that there's no mention of abortion anywhere in The Constitution. That's true. Where's the lie ‽ The 9th Amendment is The Constitution's way of saying that something doesn't need to be specified within The Constitution to be a right. Presumably, Alito is by definition a constitutional scholar, and as such >knows< that. Therefore, he is clearly and >consciously< making a statement intended to mislead anyone who doesn't know better - that is, he's lying, knows he's lying, and intends to lie to the public.

Expand full comment

DZK ; Thanks for the update.

Expand full comment

I live in Ohio and when I heard that Gibbons' ad, I almost passed out! Thanks for bringing that up—it's the perfect example of the horror that awaits us...if we don't mobilize now.

Expand full comment

WELL SAID! Thank you.

Expand full comment

everything that rethuglicans do is aimed at crushing us all -- to crush anyone who dares to think their own thoughts or to act in ways that are different from the narrow white male authoritarian ideals they espouse.

Expand full comment

Like they used to say in the USSR: "You have the right to agree with the party, you have the right to vote for the party, and you have the right to obey the party!"

Expand full comment

You've got that right!

Expand full comment

FDR’s four freedoms are something the Democrats should emphasize. I want to concentrate on one of those freedoms in this post…the freedom from want. Inflation is real right now and it’s causing more and more “want” for the working and middle classes. One of the drivers of that inflation is the higher and rising prices for gas for their cars. I just watched a segment on CNN purporting to analyze why gas prices continue to rise. The CNN economic expert reported the two major reasons were worldwide inflation and supply and demand. She said nothing about the profiteering going on by the major oil companies. The quarterly profits of the four major oil companies we deal with in the U.S. have approximately tripled for the first quarter of this year over last year. And last year those profits were already in the $billions! The expert didn’t mention shareholder capitalism or corporate democrats as contributors to the rising gas prices. And she didn’t mention the idea of a windfall profits tax to help combat those rising prices. And she failed to mention the $billions that U.S. taxpayers are still on the hook for in subsidies to those oil companies. I fear that CNN is contributing to the dearth of analysis that we get from corporate media.

Expand full comment

We need an emoji for ‘you’re right and I’m SO mad about it!

Expand full comment

Joe, in Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol", the second spirit closed his visit with Scrooge by showing him two appallingly starved and dirty children, and told him "Beware these two children of mankind! Their names are Ignorance and Want."

Expand full comment

Hope you will schedule national media talk show appearances to spread this vital message. Thanks for so clearly describing the difference between Republican and Democrat.

Expand full comment

Dee Long ; I agree, It all rings so true. How can anyone not see the truth in this message? Just look at what is happening in the red states, like Florida under DeSantis and Texas under Abbot! So many other republican states with 'trigger' laws (wonder why they are called that?). They literally want to shoot us all, and terrorize us into submission. Freedom? NOT!

Expand full comment

Dee, As much as I applaud the Professor’s message, the problem, presuming we agree that politics largely is perception, is that the Dems have been unable to pass any of the legislation mentioned, including legislation that would have required support from only 50 Senators. That list entails federal voter protection safeguards plus all the provisions included in the Budget Reconciliation package (BBB). Hence, my repeated call for Dems promptly to pass whatever BBB provisions can get support from 50 Senators as a down payment with more to come if Dems retain the House and pick up at least 2 Senate seats. In my view, only then would the Professor be poised “to spread [his]… vital message.”

Expand full comment

Professor Reich, I’d like this essay to be heard at every campaign headquarters of the Democratic Party. Our “freedoms” are being blatantly chipped at while the thirst for power of the GOP is insatiable. Gun crime and mass shootings are out of control more than ever as well as every single point you mentioned this morning. We must not be idle!

We must not dawdle; a clear and bold message to counter the hypocritical falsehoods is what we need, NOW! We also need to fight tooth and nail to protect and recapture freedoms; we Democrats must look to Ukraine and become as united within our party as the whole of Ukraine is in defending their country against losing their freedom against the power-hungry Republicans who are the equivalent of Putin and his war on Ukraine.

🌻

Expand full comment

Anne, you nailed it. We are as much under attack as Ukraine. Our freedom is in peril. The weapons being used against us are fear and misinformation aka propaganda. It's actually more insidious and effective because it doesn't appear to be a weapon at all. We're all being gassed with invisible toxins... or perhaps "gas-lighted"?

Expand full comment

Paula… Exaaaaactly!

Expand full comment

Our postcards: Vote like your life depends on it! Our Democracy is at stake! Please VOTE for DEMOCRATS on November 8, 2022.

https://www.fieldteam6.org/

Expand full comment

Right on I so agree

Expand full comment

Thank You Jackie

Expand full comment

It is so ironic that the GOP is using freedom as its theme, while their leader, Putin's friend, is about everything opposite of freedom, or tyranny. They are the party of control, greed, repression, and constriction of our rights. Expensive medical care, high education costs, misinformation and oppressive religion. The Republican party is the party of NO. There is no platform says McConnel : "We will tell you what it is after we win the election". How much more haughty and disrespectful to the voters can they get? They are not the party of anyone's freedom except their own freedom to do everything to control and enslave and silence and rip off the people. tRump sets himself up as God! Absolutely sickening! Religion has been used for millennia to control the 'masses'. It's a false security for the oppressed. One can be tricked to avoid confrontation and take 'comfort' in denial of reality. "there is pie in the sky when you die". Rubbish that belongs on the scrapheap of history! Putin's friend does not worship anything but his own image and likeness, along with ill gotten gains. (and gold toilets).

Expand full comment

Religion has been used to beat people up and keep people down. It has also been a means of lifting people up and enhancing life. Religion should never be a weapon, but it is for those who want to use a warped understanding of the Divine to give themselves power and to make excuses for committing large and small atrocities (slavery, war). We don't have to permit it. Religious leaders who believe in the rights of people and the planet need to constantly call out those abusers of religion on their bad behavior, appalling interpretation of their faith tradition, and more. I hope that will happen more often. Dr. King and those for whom he is their spiritual guide are trying. Rev. R.Sheets

Expand full comment

Ruth Sheets ; I respect and value religious faith, and may not have made it this far in life without faith. It is sad that such an important gift has been perverted by those who seek to control others and impose forced behaviors, limitations or other controls.

Expand full comment

The dog whistle works.

I still think the antidote is benefits. Yesterday I posted a personal story.

We have a nephew. While his mother and I worked for SSA, and I was an SSA advocate, he became a right winger --mainly through peer pressure. He thought Rush Limbaugh was great.

Has young children: a son aged 10. Twin girls are 4. They got $300 per child until January when Senate Republicans refused to renew the Child Tax Credit.

Both parents are Trumpers. He is editor of a small publication. Over years he bought the Republican propaganda and fought a generational war. He wrote several columns adopting propaganda from Cato and Heritage thinktanks that endorsed privatization of Social Security and Medicare. He supported the Trump attempts to undermine the trust funds.

He is a gun nut. Owns dozens, is an instructor. Writes articles about them.

Our nephew has been divorced. That $900 per month would defray his child support. Filled with Fox news propaganda he hates Biden. But Biden’s Build Back Better also includes the permanent expansion of the Child Tax Credit.

What’s a Trumper to do?

Expand full comment

My automatic answer to your question was just too flip and not helpful, but it was cause for deeper thought on the matter. "Peer pressure", I am puzzled as to how that evolves into such extreme views and the need to belong to such. I guess my question is, can it really be the propaganda of hate and fear that has spread to all corners?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wanted: Personal proof reader app. None of my devices seem to know what I am wanting to say.

Expand full comment

Will our nephew support his family? He has a dilemma.

Peer pressure. I'm sure that everybody goes through it during maturation. He went to a prep school. All his friends and some of his teachers listened to Rush every day. His mother worked in the commissioner's office. He opposed her employer. This is classic passive regressive behavior.

When I was in law school, I prosecuted juvenile cases. Defendants in the juvie system have limited rights. They were given a battery of tests that showed, in large part, that the ONLY influence was their buddies. Find the leader, turn him, and crime no longer a problem.

Many adults still have an emotional age of about 12. Want to belong. May be a subconscious impulse to Trumpism. The dog whistle also probably calls out to a collective racist subconscious.

My nephew was valedictorian of his class. I drove him to the steps of an Ivy League college but he wouldn't go in. Wouldn't go to Hopkins. He had a scholarship to UM where we lived but didn't accept it. Commuted to a local school where his few friends went.

I also heard child cases. Consider: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t14/

I was in discussion groups with other college educated retired people. A number, mostly physicians and financial people supported Trump in 2016 and were very argumentative. They socialize with each other, would eat lunch together. I produced copies of the consent decree in the Trump family fake charity case, I had to pass it out several times. Pretty sure that this document was more convincing than my arguments. Never mentioned by Fox. Several of them are now ex-Trumpers.

In our current discussion group, 2 vocal Trumpers remain One owed his positions to his Republican ties. At one time he was general counsel to a college. Says he accepts the big lie. Is a DeSantis supporter. I don't think he really believes hid own BS but must maintain a front.

Expand full comment

Well done. The last holdout isn't holding out to maintain a front. He's holding on to the hustle. Elsewhere I've stated there's two types of Tweety-freak - the gullible and the hustlers. Don't buy a used car from him!

Expand full comment

Thank you Daniel, again enlightening commentary. Always appreciated.

Expand full comment

Meditate on the lessons learned from Jonestown and Heaven's Gate - then give it all a high-tech megaphone, political opportunism, and lots & lots of collection plate money - ahem. Excuse me, free speech.

Expand full comment

Admit they're wrong?

Expand full comment

I agree with your assessment of the GOP and their warped view of freedom.

I also agree that Democrats have to be far more forceful in explaining to voters what will be lost if the GOP retakes Congess.

I've seen the more progressive democrats attack the GOP, but the majority of centrists democrats seem reticent.

This is definitely not the time for reticence but action on a daily basis.

What's left of our fragile democracy depends on democratic activism from everyone.

Expand full comment

"A living wage, the right to join a union, guaranteed healthcare, free higher education, the right to vote – these are the foundations of real freedom."

All true, and the most tangible, the most visceral of these is guaranteed healthcare. This is something the GOP has a long history of trying to take away from people. Give the people Medicare for all who want it.

At the time of the British election in 1945, everyone knew Churchill was going to win, including the Labour Party. Therefore, when it came time to plan their manifesto, Labour had nothing to lose and so decided to write what they really wanted instead of hedging to the right as they usually did.

The central part of their manifesto was guaranteed healthcare for all, and they won the election in a landslide.

The details can be worked out, all it requires is some gonadal fortitude.

Expand full comment

When Republicans aren’t using memes like “freedom” or “socialism” as meaning-free buzzwords to whip up the masses, their true intent behind “freedom” is freedom from any restraint, responsibility, or consequence for their self-interested actions.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this Robert. You got every scintilla of detail about what the GOP. The democrats need a whole new playbook and new blood to reinvigorate everything they are now. I cringe when I see Biden cozying up to Obama for help. Obama's 8 years in office is a big contributing factor that got us HERE NOW. Okay, the original sin came from Clinton who threw over the working class for big money. The Democrats need to show their constituents and the country what they stand for by actually legislating policies that matter on a batch of issues. One point, getting rid of student debt is low hanging fruit, as they say, but dithering is still the MO. I admit that I am so cynical that I probably wouldn't give the citizenry the credit to find their own anal area. However, even I find it hard to believe the American people will continue to buy the utter bull of "freedom" the GOP is trying to sell them. After all, American's live in the real world and everything that encompasses and means for how hard survival is for everyone but the rich.

Expand full comment

Can someone please wake Biden up? Does he really believe he can gain bipartisanship or is he hiding behind it? I’m so tired of voting for the DNC choices! We need to be given someone to vote for that will stand up for Democracy and get voters thinking more!

Expand full comment

YES! Isn't it INFURIATING! I left that party several years ago because, as the saying goes, that party left me....then I left the party and have no intention of coming back until/unless they stand firmly and fight for democratic principles. This damn party is nothing more than giving us Republican Light. Democrats sold out. Totally with you Jan!

Expand full comment

The USA is facing challenges at every turn: an ongoing pandemic this fall could be bad again, a highly polarized U.S. mid term election coming up, mounting inflation, the great resignation, a war in Ukraine, dramatic economic sanctions against Russia that will affect our supply chain for years to come. China continues to build stronger AI. Our planet is being destroyed. The southern border is NOT being addressed by this administration, high crime in major cities, high suicide rates, mental depression issues and poverty with people living on the streets. Our food and water is being poisoned. Citizens are sick and dying of diabetes, heart disease, dementia. Young people are now getting cancer. Freedom for the USA can ONLY be obtained if both parties work together to find solutions. Abortion is NOT being banned. Only changing the power to the states. Don't like your blue state move to red state. Don't like your red state move to a blue state. We are no longer the UNITED States. Both parties have destroyed the "united" with their abuse of power. Career politicians are the worst. Why half the country is fascinated with Trump, Musk and Bezos. These 3 men created massive wealth through hard work. Many politicians are jealous and tend to crucify the rich. Do you know who gives tremendous amount of money to charities that help our citizens? THE RICH! Be very wary of politicians that amass wealth while in office. 2 + 2 = 4.

Expand full comment

Dear Supreme Court,

The 4th amendment of my Constitution, very clearly states that:

1. My vagina is secure.

2. No one has the right to search my vagina.

3. No one has the right to seize my vagina.

4. If the state wants to search my vagina, they must acquire a search warrant.

5. The state’s application for a search warrant must:

a. describe my vagina (and include such information as where they expect to find it, when they intend to search it, and where they got their information).

b. exactly what they expect to find inside my vagina and

c. the reasons they expect to find evidence of a crime inside my vagina.

In addition to my vagina, the 4th amendment also protects my papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. No one can prove my vagina is a “potential” crime scene without illegally searching and seizing my papers and effects (such as the results of urine or blood tests, or pee-sticks from Walgreens). When the state searches my vagina and discovers a watermelon sized cyst, instead of a fetus, will the state be required to pay for the removal of the cyst?

For the record, my vagina has a mind of its own. I have no idea how many fetuses my vagina has expelled between my periods but given the size of blood clots on my sanitary napkins, I am certain it was a monthly occurrence for 40 years in a row.

I have questions.

1. How many times a year will the state be allowed to search my vagina?

2. Who will pay for these searches?

3. Who will conduct these searches?

4. Will they use their hands to conduct these searches?

5. Will the state be allowed to seize my vagina? If yes, will they be allowed to cut it out of me, or seize me too?

For the record, my vagina is attached to my person. Do men consider their penises part of their person? Forcing a 9 pound, 11 ounce, 22 inch long baby out of my vagina, is like forcing a bowling ball out of a penis.

Sincerely Yours,

An American Vagina

Amendment IV

Search and arrest

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Expand full comment

LOL! Handled properly, that's a >dynamite< stand-up comedy routine. The fact that it's truth only makes it better! Consider working it up for an open mic somewhere!

Expand full comment

DZK, when it comes to the use of force, I am never rational. If I was funny, it is because humor is truth we do not want to see.

For me, this is a religious matter. Genesis 2:7 tells us that life begins on earth, not the womb. Science tells us that the life-giving lungs are the last organ to develop inside the womb (24 weeks after conception). While it will take another 8 weeks in the womb before the lungs develop the capacity to breathe air outside the womb, it will take another 3 years before the lungs are capable of supporting an adult body.

It takes 45-months to birth a child – NOT 9. That is the reason, children’s lungs cannot be transplanted into an adult body. IOW, adults cannot survive with the lungs of a child.

We humans are more like marsupials – our children develop outside the womb. Once a baby kangaroo leaves the womb, it must enter its second womb on its mother’s belly – or die. So too, human fetuses will die if they cannot reach their second womb (society’s pouch). When there is no second womb available, terminating a pregnancy is an act of mercy – not murder. Human fetuses need air to develop. Since there is no air inside a woman’s body, fetuses must enter another womb where they can breathe air.

Until society is willing to carry every fetus for three years, abortion will be a necessary act of mercy.

Expand full comment

Big government of any stripe, whether currently led by Democrats or Republicans, isn't going to be much concerned with my freedoms. But I can certainly agree that the Republican Party today is not the party of freedom. Maybe in Abraham Lincoln's day, but certainly not today.

Expand full comment

Thank you for dealing with the constant misuse of the concept of freedom as used today in comparison to its use by the founders. You have adequately stirred your followers in agreement so I will make only two small points. The first value mentioned in our charter document, the Declaration, was equality. It is the essential republican value.

The 63 March on Washington was A. Phillip Randolph's creation, supported by others including Bayard Rustin. Randolph was a socialist and labor leader as well as a black activist. Rustin was an erstwhile socialist, gay black man, black activist and justice activist. King was considered a major and essential speaker but it was not his march. Others, such as these two should not be forgotten.

Expand full comment