Monday, July 20, 2020

RSN: Bill Simpich | Building a Culture of Solidarity, Not Shame and White Fragility






Reader Supported News
20 July 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


RSN: Bill Simpich | Building a Culture of Solidarity, Not Shame and White Fragility
Robin DiAngelo at home in Seattle. (photo: Djeneba Aduayom/NYT)
Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News
Simpich writes: "Let me make it plain - I agree with 80% of White Fragility. The 20% is what makes it a counterproductive book for anyone who cares about building social movements for fundamental change in this country." 

I grew up Catholic. I know all about shame – that was the Church’s organizing tool. If you live long enough, you live to regret organizing people around shame. It doesn’t work. It breeds resentment. Solidarity gets the goods. Shame won’t get there.
The history of racism is horrendous. One could make a moral argument that people of color should be put in charge by fiat and everyone of European descent should have most of their property taken away. I don’t think that’s going to work – for the same reason Robin DiAngelo’s approach isn’t going to work.
Robin DiAngelo makes it plain that she stands with shame. Michael Eric Dyson glories in describing her as “the new sheriff in town on racism.”
Dyson and Cornel West are famously at odds because of their fundamentally different philosophies – which I would characterize as neoliberalism vs. the prophetic black radical feminist tradition – best exemplified by the Combahee River Collective statement (summarized by Vinson Cunningham in this week’s New Yorker):
The Combahee River Collective Statement is frank about the woeful position of Black women in society, and about how poorly they have been treated by others – including Black men – who should be their allies.

“We realize that the only people who care enough about us to work consistently for our liberation is us.” the statement says.

Still, the collective was steadfast in its commitment to solidarity, and asserts that the ‘position’ of Black lesbians – oppressed by dint of class, race, gender, and sexual orientation – would help their struggle against capitalism, racism, patriarchy, and homophobia, and would help bring about the freedom of the entire world.

“We might use our position at the bottom,” the statement says, “to make a clear leap into revolutionary action. If Black women were free, it would mean that everyone else would have to be free since our freedom would necessitate the destruction of all the systems of oppression.”

That’s an end of days I would like to see. It will require, I think, a conviction that our lives, however devalued, have many facets, and that one sufficiently emancipatory gesture might scoop us all up.
Robin DiAngelo is upfront by saying that she believes race is more important than class.  The statement doesn’t differentiate between class, race, gender and sexual orientation. What metric do you use to say which one is more important? They are all extremely important.
Robin DiAngelo is also upfront in saying that she doesn’t like to talk about capitalism because it gets in the way of her talking about racism. Here’s a telling quote (from Daniel Bergner’s recent NY Times article):
Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism – I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me.
Bergner covered DiAngelo’s workshop last year at the Brava Theater on 24th Street in SF, where people paid between $65 to $160 per ticket to see her speak for three and a half hours. DiAngelo is critical about capitalism, but she’s not about to alienate this upscale audience on that more dangerous level – to herself. Instead, she binds them with shame, specifying the predominant demographic in the house, white progressives:
I know you. Oh, white progressives are my specialty. Because I am a white progressive ... And I have a racist worldview.
White fragility, in DiAngelo’s view, is:
... far from weakness. It is “weaponized.” Its evasions are actually a white liberal arsenal, a means of protecting a frail moral ego, defending a righteous self-image and, ultimately, perpetrating racial hierarchies, because what goes unexamined will never get upended.
We will never win the battles that we need to win against racism, capitalism, patriarchy, and homophobia by attacking each other’s self-respect. 
All of us need to get educated about the evils of racism – no matter how “woke” we think we are – we need to nail down all those stories and statistics that DiAngelo and many other people do so well. And people all over America need to hear it. 
And working-class people – who come in all colors – need to tell their stories too, otherwise half of them will keep voting for people like Trump. They do not need free hectoring from DiAngelo (they won’t be paying $65 for a ticket). And neither does anyone else.
This is the moment that leadership from people of color in America is critically important. All of us need to listen to the struggles of others and to open our hearts and minds to them. We want to win – not tear each other down. Racism will not be resolved in our lifetime, but it’s not a chronic disease that makes it impossible for us to be anything but frail. There is an aspirational element that is important – we need to move forward on all fronts to overcome racism.  
Corporations want us to be endlessly pathologizing one another. HR will make a killing. No one will challenge the corporate model. MSNBC and CNN love it when we beat each other up rather than find ways to hold each other up – and bring down the formation that creates monsters like MSNBC and CNN.
What Robin DiAngelo is doing is not new. It’s been going on in movement circles for more than forty years. Ricky Marcuse was doing it throughout the Bay Area back then – and the feedback was that many of the participants withdrew from activism after their seminar with Ricky. Ricky was a smart, caring person. But if you don’t communicate effectively – yes, against all the fragility that all self-respecting people have, who want to be treated with respect – you are going to win your battle, while all of us lose the war.


Bill Simpich is an Oakland attorney who knows that it doesn't have to be like this. He was part of the legal team chosen by Public Justice as Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2003 for winning a jury verdict of $4.4 million in the Earth First!/IWW lawsuit of Judi Bari & Darryl Cherney against the FBI and the Oakland police.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.















10 new cases of COVID-19 reported on Cape Cod, COVID-19 hits Cuttyhunk, island in state’s tiniest town




10 new cases of COVID-19 reported on Cape Cod


By Dennis Coffey
Posted Jul 19, 2020


BARNSTABLE — The Massachusetts Department of Public Health on Sunday reported 218 newly confirmed cases of COVID-19 for a total of 106,882 cases statewide to date.
Ten of those new cases were in Barnstable County. The total number of cases on Cape Cod to date is now 1,622.
No newly reported cases of confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, were reported in Dukes or Nantucket counties. According to the state data, the total number of cases to date in those counties is 59 and 27, respectively.
No new deaths related to the disease were reported in Barnstable, Dukes or Nantucket counties. To date, 154 people have died as a result of COVID-19 on the Cape. One death due to the disease is listed for Dukes and Nantucket counties combined. Nantucket Cottage Hospital previously reported the death on that island.
Cape Cod Hospital reported one patient hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19.
Falmouth Hospital had two patients being treated for COVID-19, and Nantucket Cottage Hospital had one patient diagnosed with the disease.
None of the hospitals reported COVID-19 patients in their intensive care units.
Martha’s Vineyard Hospital had no patients admitted with confirmed or suspected COVID-19.


COVID-19 hits Cuttyhunk, island in state’s tiniest town

By Ethan Genter
Posted Jul 19, 2020 

Seasonal resident tests postive for the coronavirus; 25 others tested.
CUTTYHUNK — The coronavirus reached the most isolated part of the state this week after a seasonal resident on Cuttyhunk, one of the handful of small islands that make up the town of Gosnold, tested positive for COVID-19.
The woman, who had been on-island for a little over a week, went to the mainland to get tested and was confirmed positive on Wednesday, said Gosnold Selectman Gail Blout.
The remote island, which sits between Vineyard Sound and Buzzards Bay, has a minuscule town government, but has started contract tracing and secured 25 test kits Friday.
The kits came over on the ferry and were administered by a visiting doctor from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston to people who came into close contact with the woman, Blout said. The tests have been sent to the mainland to be processed and results are expected next week. All of the people who were tested are self-isolating.
Cuttyhunk is the only public island in Gosnold and is accessible by ferry from New Bedford. Like the rest of the state, the tiny speck of land has been struggling economically due to the pandemic, but remained one of the few towns that did not have a confirmed positive case until this week.
There are limited medical services on the island, which goes from about a dozen residents in the winter to several hundred in the summer. The closest hospital is a boat ride away in New Bedford, though there is a rotating visiting doctor program in the high season. There is no pharmacy or walk-in clinic.
The island has taken precautions against COVID-19. Masks are required at town docks and harbors, as well as on the ferry. The harbor, which is extremely popular with boaters, was closed until June and the town sent out precautions to people, saying they would have better access to food, supplies and medical care on the mainland.
“If you must go to the island, please adhere to all requirements for social distancing, use of face masks if 6 feet of distancing can’t be maintained, limit the size of gatherings to no more than 10, frequent handwashing, etc,” an advisory from the Board of Health read.
People have been coming to the island, though the population seems smaller than most summers. The town is continuing to urge people to wear masks, socially distance themselves and be safe.
The harbor has been full on the weekends. The island’s lone market is operating curbside pickup and the handful of restaurants are takeout only. Some seasonal residents have opted to stay on the mainland this summer.
“We’ve been very diligent about keeping people updated with the guidelines from the state,” Blout said.
The town is working with the state Department of Public Health and is hoping to get more test kits. The woman who tested positive was the first person on-island who has been tested, according to Blout.
Right now, the Board of Selectmen, which doubles as the Board of Health, is awaiting the test results of the 25 kits they did secure.
“We’re following all the guidelines and we’re hoping we’ll not have a large outbreak,” Blout said.










Trump Holds Bizarre News Conference in Rose Garden | The Tonight Show








Jimmy addresses President Trump’s bizarre news conference in The White House Rose Garden and Walmart requiring customers to wear masks. 







Anti Trump Republicans & The Lincoln Project: Why Some Don't Want Trump - TLDR News









In recent weeks, a group of anti-Trump Republicans seems to be increasing its campaign against the president. Groups like the Lincoln project and GOP leaders (including Romney and Bush Jr) have come out against Trump, saying they won't vote for him in 2020. So in this video, we explain this movement, the issue they have with their leader and what it means for Trump's 2020 campaign.







Letter to Mrs. Bixby









"I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."






FAIR: ‘If We Had Single-Payer Healthcare, People Would Get the Care They Need’






FAIR
View article on FAIR's website

‘If We Had Single-Payer Healthcare, People Would Get the Care They Need’

Janine Jackson interviewed the  University of Minnesota’s Dr. Gordon Mosser about Covid and Medicare for All  for the July 10, 2020, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
NYT: Health Care Takes Center Stage in Battle for Congress During Pandemic
New York Times (7/12/20)
Janine Jackson: Corporate news media take note of problems with the US healthcare system’s pandemic performance. You may have read about the recovering Seattle man who left the hospital with a 180-page bill for over a million dollars. Or the two Texas friends who both got the same COVID test: One was charged $200; the other $6,400.
But when I looked at major news outlets recently for stories including the terms “Coronavirus” or “Covid” and “Medicare for All, “ I found only reports on Medicare for All as an issue. Some Sanders voters say they can wait four more years for Medicare for All. Support for Medicare for All is part of some insurgent Democrats’ “unabashedly left-wing platform.” The New York Times called support a litmus test for progressives, lauding a Senate candidate for staying away from it, while CNN ponders whether Joe Biden “needs to appease people who want him to be in favor of Medicare for All.”
For many media, by the looks of it, healthcare for everyone is preeminently a political football—while for millions of Americans, it's a life-or-death need and a rallying cry, which the unequally shared ravages of the coronavirus pandemic only make more acute.
Gordon Mosser is an MD and a senior fellow in the Division of Health Policy and Management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. His article, “The Case for Medicare for All Has Grown Stronger Than Ever,” appeared recently on MinnPost.com, as well as Common Dreams. He joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Gordon Mosser.
Gordon Mosser: Thank you very much for having me here.
Politico: No, Coronavirus Isn’t Proof We Need Socialism
Politico (3/24/20)
JJ: Early on in the pandemic, we saw some articles like “No, Coronavirus Isn't Proof We Need Socialism,” that cautioned against talking about Medicare for All in the context of Covid, suggesting that it was opportunistic or ideological to do so. Of course, maintenance of the status quo is ideological. But also, it's just strange to say that a public health crisis isn't the time to talk about how we as a society do healthcare. In what particular ways does what we're seeing strengthen an argument for Medicare for All?
GM: In the first place, it makes it vividly clear that many people cannot afford healthcare, including people who normally would have been in good health and not needed it, but now with a pandemic on, we've got a lot of people who unexpectedly need healthcare. And as you said in your setup piece, the prices charged are all over the place; some of them are utterly outrageous, and if we had single-payer healthcare, or universal healthcare, we wouldn't have this problem; people would be able to get the care they need.
Secondly, without healthcare available at no cost to everyone, there are many people who hold off getting even tested, let alone treated. And this causes problems for the population as a whole, because those folks who actually have the disease, but don't even know about it, are spreading it without realizing that they're doing it.
And the third problem is that, it doesn't create inequities in healthcare, but it makes them starkly vivid. In television coverage recently, not right now, but in March, there was footage of hospitals in Brooklyn and Queens that showed obviously shabby circumstances and inadequate staffing. And then there was footage shown from upscale hospitals in Manhattan, where everything was just fine. That shouldn't be.
JJ: It seems clear it calls for a coordinated response. You can't do it piecemeal. But coordinated and systemwide, those aren't words or concepts that are generally center stage in the US. There's a kind of, “We're scrappy individualists; if you can get healthcare, then you deserve healthcare.” And the pandemic really makes clear that you're only as healthy as your sickest person. We are a society, whether some people like it or not.
GM: Yeah, the lack of a coordinated approach, both to the prevention and to the management of an epidemic when it occurs, is glaringly absent in the United States. The incompetence of our senior leadership at this point complicates the picture, because one could argue that, if they weren't so incompetent, the situation wouldn't be as bad as it is. And that's probably true. But in any case, we wouldn't have a coordinated approach, because we don't have any governmental body, or any other, that's authorized to take action to create a coordinated response.
Part of that is due to the fact that we fund public health primarily at the state and local level. About 90% of public health expenditures are made by states and local authorities; only 10% by the federal government.
So we get lots of movements here and there that don't have really anything to do with each other. Keeping things locked down, opening up quickly, all these very obvious differences reported in the news every day. If we had a single payment system, then the federal government would be paying for pretty much everything, and it would have a very strong motive to assure effective, coordinated public health activities.
Right now, failures in public health result in extra costs, primarily for private insurers. Federal government, of course, has to pay for the failures as they affect Medicare and Medicaid, but not as they affect the rest of the population, which is more people. If we had a single system, we would have good motive for the federal government to pay more attention and fund public health better than they do at present.
JJ: It almost seems willfully ignorant at this point to keep saying about Medicare for All, “Well, how would we pay for it? How would we pay for it?” Because I do feel that many folks have put a lot of energy into answering precisely that question. But assuming an earnest concern, you recently published a review of studies on specifically the question of cost of the Medicare for All bills that are currently before Congress. That's HR.1384 and S.1129. I wonder if you could tell us, in layperson's terms, what that look at costs, and studies of costs, illustrated.
Gordon Mosser
Gordon Mosser: "We keep hearing, of course, from the private insurance companies and from the pharmaceutical companies and from politicians, principally on the right, that we really can't afford Medicare for All. This is nonsense. We can afford it."
GM: In any discussion, almost, of Medicare for All, once all the benefits are made clear, somebody will say, “Yeah, OK, fine, but how much will that cost?” And the short and accurate and—for many people—surprising answer is: nothing.
How can that be? The cost for US healthcare under Medicare for All would be less than what it is currently, and how much less depends on which study you look at. But if you look at them overall, and do some critique and averaging, as I did in the paper I’ve published,  the decrease in costs would be about 6% under Medicare for All. Amazing! You know, more people would be covered, more benefits would be provided. How can that be?
The answer lies principally in two arenas. First of all, the most important one is the waste of private insurance administration. Private insurance administration costs about 13.2% of the premiums they charge, a very large percentage. Medicare, in contrast, costs 2.3%. So if you can get rid of more than 10% of overall healthcare expense by shifting from the inefficient private administration model to Medicare for everybody, you can save a lot of money.
The second arena is drugs. Currently, US government is forbidden by law from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare drug costs, the so-called Medicare Part D plan. Forbidden by law—that is utterly outrageous. And under Medicare for All, of course, this arrangement, which is purely for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies, would be removed. The estimates for how much would be saved on pharmaceutical costs vary, but it's at least 10%; it might be 40%. So that's the second arena.
There are a few others too, but those are the principal ones. And if you look at them, sources of savings—despite more people covered, more benefits provided—you can drop the cost below what the current cost is. So we don't need to be concerned about the cost.
And we keep hearing, of course, from the private insurance companies and from the pharmaceutical companies and from politicians, principally on the right, that we really can't afford Medicare for All. This is nonsense. We can afford it. That's not the issue at all, shouldn't be an obstacle at all. You can argue about whether it's a good idea to have the federal government more heavily involved in healthcare; that's a different question. But the overall cost would be less than it is now.
JJ: And the separation of jobs and healthcare, I think, in terms of seeing what the pandemic is uncovering or revealing or illustrating, the fact that if you lose your job, through no fault of your own, you also lose your healthcare. It seems to me that is an opportunity for folks to say, “Well, why should our healthcare be connected to our jobs?” So, in other words, I guess I'm just asking, like, this is an opportunity. There’s always been an argument for Medicare for All, but my golly, if you don't see it now, I mean, this does seem to highlight the flaws that have been there.
GM: Yeah, I agree. Let's put the spotlight on the defects in our current system. We had 30 million people without health insurance prior to the pandemic. Now many people have lost their jobs. It's kind of hard to keep track, and I haven't heard or read any really reliable figures, but it's more than 30 million, that's for sure now.
Common Dreams: The Case for Medicare for All Has Grown Stronger Than Ever
Common Dreams (6/29/20)
JJ: I guess what we can do is keep the information out there in front of people—no matter what politician is saying it, or not saying it—but just keep the facts on the ground in front of people, and the idea that we do have alternatives. We don't just have to do what we've always done.
GM: Right.
JJ: All right, then. We've been speaking with Gordon Mosser; he's senior fellow in the Division of Health Policy and Management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. His article, “The Case for Medicare for All Has Grown Stronger Than Ever,” which includes a link to his research reviewappeared recently on Minnpost.com, as well as on Common Dreams.org. Gordon Mosser, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
GM: Well, thank you very much.













RSN: FOCUS: Juan Cole | Trump's ISIL Reelection Scheme: Send Federal Agents to Provoke Protesters in Dem Cities, Scare Suburbs




Reader Supported News
20 July 20

In the jargon of the day, I view RSN as an essential service. I’d donate monthly if I could afford it, but am living on a tight retirement budget. Thanks (from Canada) for providing access to a selection of well-grounded, wide-ranging journalism.
Marguerite, RSN (Canadian) Reader-Supporter


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611

Reader Supported News
20 July 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS: Juan Cole | Trump's ISIL Reelection Scheme: Send Federal Agents to Provoke Protesters in Dem Cities, Scare Suburbs
Christopher David. (photo: Portland Tribune)
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Cole writes: "Part of Trump's reelection strategy is to scare the white suburbs, which polls show have soured on him, with 'urban' (read: minority) violence. This is clear from his current campaign ads, which try to paint the gentlemanly Joe Biden as a bomb thrower."
It now appears clear that part of that strategy is to send Federal agents dressed like Iraq War troops to Democratic-run cities, on the pretext of protecting Federal property, and then for them to attack and provoke Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police protesters, causing violence to escalate and using it … to scare the suburbs. The exercise also has the advantage for Trump of entrenching a new form of secret police and of turning Federal agents into instruments of his authoritarianism. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has confirmed the plan to send the Feds into those cities.
Provoking social conflict so as to polarize society was part of the Russian hacker playbook in 2016. It is the preferred tactic of terrorist groups such as ISIL and the Neo-Nazis, since a polarized society is much easier to scare into submission. 
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said on CNN on Sunday that the Federal presence and tactics had inflamed the situation and provoked the protesters.
Demonstrators came out again Sunday night for the 53rd night in a row in Portland, Oregon, demanding the defunding of the city police and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, according to Tom Hallman, Jr. at Oregonlive.com 
He writes, 
“The Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation announced a 7 p.m. meeting at Cathedral Park before marching to the Portland Police Bureau building at 7214 N. Philadelphia Ave., which houses the traffic division. It sits at the east end of the St. Johns Bridge. Others will likely congregate in downtown Portland, where the Justice Center and the Hatfield Federal Courthouse have been the epicenter of clashes with law enforcement authorities.”
The youth have in recent days mostly clashed with Federal agents sent by Trump on the pretext of protecting the Federal courthouse, and who have used provocative teargas and physical attacks on the protesters. Video posted on YouTube suggests that the Feds, with anonymized name tags and unmarked vehicles, attacked people simply for being in the street and made arrests without warrants or any probable cause. This behavior is unprecedented for Federal agents, who seldom make arrests and have in the past proceeded only with a court warrant. In other words, they are behaving like the Egyptian secret police.
Saturday night, protesters had stormed the Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse before being expelled by either police or Federal agents, and others had gotten into the Portland Police Association building, where someone set a quickly-extinguished fire.
On Saturday night, Zane Sparling of the Portland Tribune reports, a former naval officer and a Vet, Christopher David, who saw the Federal agents acting unconstitutionally approached them. He said he wanted to talk to them about how they were violating their oath of office. They beat him repeatedly with a baton, fracturing his hand in two places. It is in a splint and will require surgery. But he did not move, earning the moniker “Man of Steel” and “Captain Portland.” Then they pepper-sprayed him in the eyes, twice, and he retreated, stinging and half blind. He says he could have been killed.
No wonder that Federal agent did not want to wear a name tag.
Mr. David had every right to be on that street in front of the courthouse.
Mr. David is an example of how Trump’s scheme can backfire on him. Instead of a scraggly protester to scare the white suburbs with, his goons came up with a former commissioned officer in the Navy, whom they have put in the hospital for standing on the street. That is what Fascism looks like. It spares no one.












Portland protester describes beating by federal officers




It's time to rid PORTLAND of KING DONALD's GESTAPO!
Cape Cod Women for Change
The narrative in this article, videos and photos are FRIGHTENING. This Naval Academy graduate wanted to tell federal officers to honor their oath to the Constitution- they broke his hand.



Chris David of Portland was struck repeatedly by federal officers' batons during a downtown rally on Saturday.




Christopher David is not a man of steel.
But he has earned that and other nicknames — some call him "Captain Portland" or "Supersoldier" — after David stood as solidly as a rock while federal officers pepper sprayed him twice and struck him at least five times with a baton during a rally outside the Hatfield Courthouse on Saturday, July 18.
Of the attack, captured on video by the Portland Tribune, David says he "just took it."
"I knew I was never going to react. I was never going to fight back," he said. "I'm a little too old to be beaten by a bunch of young guys."
David, 53, of Portland, is hardly an anti-establishment type. He says he attended the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, after high school, later serving with the Navy Seabees while becoming a commissioned officer and aeronautical engineer.

The unmatched series of protests here have waxed and waned for more than 50 nights, but Saturday's rally was David's first, his attendance spurred by reports of unmarked vans snatching protesters off the streets without due process.

He arrived around 8 p.m. and was just planning on leaving when federal officers burst out of the bricked-up front of the courthouse around 10:45 p.m.
David said he slowly approached the officers, hoping to engage them in dialogue.
"I felt these gentlemen were violating their oath of office, and I wanted to talk to them," he explained.
Things didn't go according to plan.
As some federal officers rushed to push down makeshift barricades propped against the outer doors of the courthouse, one officer pushed David back. He stood stock still as several more officers swarmed forward, striking him with a baton and pepper spraying him. David says he lost his vision momentarily, due to the spray and clouds of tear gas engulfing the park.
He sat down on a park bench, before being pulled back from the flashpoint by a street medic, going by the name Tav, who treated David and ensured that he was taken by an ambulance to the hospital.

David says he has two fractures in his hand and, while it's currently in a splint, he is expecting to need surgery later this week.
After a flurry of attention, David is hoping life will return to normal soon. While he never did speak with the camouflaged feds, he said he hopes they hear his message:
"That oath of office is essentially swearing loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, and what they're doing is not constitutional anymore."








Trump Screams on Twitter That Obama and Biden Should Get 50 Years in Prison for Treason, ‘NEVER FORGET!’











Trump knows next to nothing about how government functions, and he demonstrates it on a daily basis. There is no clearer indication that Trump doesn’t understand the tasks the constitution assigns to each branch than his endless lament that nothing is happening to the clear spying on his campaign! You know, the spying that Obama and Biden did! Indeed, Trump thinks that if it were the other way around, it would be a clear act of treason befitting fifty years in prison.
This is not the tweet of a well man. This is terrifying.




LINK






The GOP just tried to kick hundreds of students off the voter rolls

    This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...