The USA by a slim margin votes for Fascism, Rascism, Mysogeny, Hate.

[Fred Steeves]

IMO this is what the birth pangs of a genuine resistance may look like, and we're only a few short weeks in. No pussy hats, no tired old Russiagate or screaming "Nazi!" until people get tired of hearing it, but those from their own party who already don't like what they're seeing. Things like firing vets at the VA, and the optics of the world's richest man going after grammas Medicaid, might just fall under the category of unintended consequences and wind up uniting both democrats and republicans alike.

The sooner people begin to understand that this is a class issue, a top/down issue not left/right, the sooner we can maybe enter the realms of thinking about uniting in a general strike to shut this shit down, maybe even finally get a real left wing party to replace these shitty, center right democrats. Short of something along these lines, I'm afraid this really might be all she wrote for what still remains of this democracy/republic.

As Mario Savio put it two years before I was born:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

We shut that shit down, we have a chance but it would take a movement together bearing all political stripes under the banner of one common goal, which is obviously hard if not darn near impossible to do. Unless this cycle of holding our noses and automatically voting blue no matter who for these greedy worthless democrats, the barn door will remain flung wide open for fake populists like DJT. 

I like these "Due Dissidence" guys, commentary and analysis from a very level headed lefty perspective.

[Peter Lemkin]

[Peter Lemkin]

WELCOME TO THE FOURTH REICH - THE FIRST OF MANY THOUSANDS MORE ARRESTS FOR SPEECH!
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT IS ON ITS LAST LEGS UNDER TRUMP/MUSK/VANCE AND THEIR FELLOW FASCISTS!!!

[size=12]SCO[/size]OP: Emails Show Mahmoud Khalil Asked Columbia for Protection a Day Before He Was Detained
"I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm."
Prem Thakker
Mar 10


[img=550x366.7925824175824]https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F11df1967-ef4f-4356-987a-ea127068b8b2_2346x1565.jpeg[/img]

Mahmoud Khalil speaks to members of the media about the Revolt for Rafah encampment at Columbia University on June 1, 2024. Photo by Jeenah Moon/Reuters

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian who helped lead negotiations between Columbia University and student protesters, had appealed to the school for protection from harassment and possibly Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents one day before the Trump administration detained him on Saturday, emails obtained by Zeteo show.
The most recent among the leaked messages was an email Khalil, a green card holder, sent to Columbia interim president Katrina Armstrong on March 7. “Since yesterday, I have been subjected to a vicious, coordinated, and dehumanizing doxxing campaign led by Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer who, among others, have labeled me a security threat and called for my deportation,” he began.
“Their attacks have incited a wave of hate, including calls for my deportation and death threats. I have outlined the wider context below, yet Columbia has not provided any meaningful support or resources in response to this escalating threat,” he added.
“I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm.”
The message was especially notable given several reports of ICE being spotted on campus throughout the week and Columbia’s own guidance published this weekend about “potential visits to campus” by ICE. In the memo, the school said faculty and staff “should not interfere” in “exigent circumstances” where ICE agents seek access to university buildings or people without a warrant.
Columbia University, Davidai, and Lederer did not immediately respond to Zeteo’s requests for comment. On Twitter, Davidai, an assistant professor at Columbia’s Business School who had been suspended from campus last year over allegations he had harassed university staff, denied collaborating with the Trump administration to get Khalil deported. In online posts, Davidai had called Khalil a “terrorist supporter” and suggested he should be deported, tagging Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Khalil’s March 7 email came after an earlier Jan. 31 email he sent, in which he urged the school “to take immediate action to protect international students at Columbia facing severe and pervasive doxing, discriminatory harassment, and very possibly deportation in retaliation for the lawful exercising of their rights to freedom of speech, expression, and association…”
Khalil cited a threatening post by the pro-Israel organization Betar in January. In the post, the group falsely wrote that he said, “Zionists don’t deserve to live” – a statement Khalil “unequivocally” denied making in his email to university officials. Betar also wrote that ICE⁩ “is aware of his home address and whereabouts” and that they “have provided all his information to multiple contacts.”
“He’s on our deport list!“ Betar added.
Citing the Betar post, Khalil asked Armstrong in his email: “With the stakes being so high, I ask you, as representatives of Columbia University’s administration – how will you protect international students from doxing and from deportation? How will you protect these students’ rights to free speech, expression, and association – rights provided for in the U.S. Constitution and Columbia’s Code of Conduct – and stop the suppression and now potential criminalization of that speech and expression? Students’ futures, their livelihoods, and now, without exaggerating, their lives are at risk.”
[b]Targeted Removal Before Arrest[/b]
On Thursday, March 6, Khalil emailed Gerald Lewis, the vice president of Columbia Public Safety, and cc’d Armstrong regarding the deactivation of his university ID. Khalil wrote that during a campus protest, he was approached by public safety staff who informed him his ID had been deactivated due to not being registered for classes this semester.
“I am a recent alumnus, having graduated in December 2024, with my degree set to be conferred in May. By now, I believe you’ve confirmed that I entered the campus like any other Columbia affiliate, swiping my ID and showing it to security,” Khalil wrote.
“I questioned why I was being singled out, as I am aware of other Columbia affiliates who were in similar situations and were not approached, despite being in close proximity to me at the time,” noting that the staff who approached were “well aware that I am a Palestinian national, as we have previously communicated and worked together to ensure safe campus protests.”
“However, when I asked for clarification on how I was identified and why I was the only individual approached, they refused to provide any explanation,” Khalil wrote, questioning why he was the only individual targeted and who issued the instructions for the staff to approach and remove him from campus. Khalil wrote that the lack of a clear justification raised concerns for targeted discrimination.
“For over a year, I have been collaborative with your office and other university offices to ensure all students are safe and that the university operates smoothly so I was really shocked to be treated this way. If I’m unwelcome on Columbia campus, please let me know through the right channels.”
[b]Trump: More Arrests to Come[/b]
For more than 24 hours after his detainment, Khalil’s whereabouts were unclear. Per the ICE detainee tracker, he is now held in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana (just months ago, rights groups published a report on facilities in Louisiana entitled "Inside the Black Hole: Systemic Human Rights Abuses Against Immigrants Detained & Disappeared in Louisiana”).
The Trump administration has scrambled to justify Khalil’s detention – but has yet to say explicitly what, if anything, Khalil has been charged with. First, the Department of Homeland Security referred Zeteo to the Press Office.
A State Department spokesperson initially told Zeteo they cannot comment on individual visa cases, but "in general, the department has broad authority to revoke visas … under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and that the department “exercise[s] that authority when information comes to light at any time indicating that a visa holder may be inadmissible to the United States or otherwise ineligible for a visa.”
But then, Rubio issued a curt statement that appeared to be trying to reconcile the confusion of how the State Department could even go after someone’s green card – especially after the arresting agents didn’t even know Khalil had one. “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” Rubio wrote.
Finally, on Monday, President Donald Trump celebrated the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, calling him, without providing evidence, "a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student.”
"This is the first arrest of many to come,” Trump added.

[Peter Lemkin]

This is about the Lies Told by Trump Admin. re: Tariffs
They use propaganda to tell the public that Tariffs are the exact opposite of what they explain them as.

[Peter Lemkin]

The title is meant in both senses of the term!
This little-known show is, I think, great. It is along the lines of the book "The dangerous case of Donald J. Trump - 17 (then up to 37 in updated version) psychiatrists and clinical psychologists speak out" turned into a weekly show. They have interesting guests. The one today is excellent! Ahmed Baba who has researched in detail Project 25 and its implementation/implications. Another nice aspect of the show - which is deadly serious - is they put in some gallows humor to help take the stress off of the deep depression and helplessness - even panic and suicidal thoughts (or moving out of USA, etc) people are having - and sometimes deal directly with coping mechanisms from humor through meditation to political action and other things. I'm addicted to the show. One of the programmers is cool and collected; the other more prone to panic and doom; but as these are the two main ways we see anti-MAGA/Trump/Musk/Fascist forces dealing with 'things', it covers all 'bases'. Much recommended.

[Peter Lemkin]

Michael Wolff interview [he's banned on most MSM if not all of them for a variety of reasons, primarily fear of lawsuits from Trump].
Wolff is the person in the investigative journalism world who know the most about Epstein and Epstein's relationships with Trump and many in that 'orbit'.
Wolff also seems to be the only journalist with a slew of audio interviews no one else claims to have by and/or about Epstein. Wolff is an excellent and honest journalist; my only worry is he might suddenly decide to 'fall out of a tall building window' or be shot after being mistaken for a deer in NYC. I think Trump and others fear what he knows and that much of it he can document [i.e., prove in Court, if needed]. To say Wolff knows Epstein's (and Trump and others in their circle's) secrets is true, but almost an understatement. Wolff alone, I think, could bring down Trump and many other high people. I hope he takes 'precautions' and has both good lawyers and enough money for them when [not if] needed!!! This is a scandal within a scandal within a scandal involving MANY highly placed and important people - from British royalty, through Trump and friends, to many corporate magnate types, to celebrates, to Congresspersons and more. Many have already died mysteriously [most notably Epstein's murder in prison (I believe on Trump's wink and nod)]; there will be others and this all needs to be explored and exposed in Court, but doesn't seem to be heading that way anytime soon.....

[Peter Lemkin]

When the Rule of Law Becomes Optional
The Slow Motion Coup Continues in Broad Daylight
Mike Brock
Mar 17

The administration's decision to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants despite an explicit federal court order represents more than just another norm violation or controversial policy choice. It marks a moment when the constitutional order itself has been directly and publicly challenged by the executive branch.
“I don't know. You have to speak to the lawyers about that,” Trump said when confronted with the fact that his administration had ignored Judge Boasberg's ruling. Then, dismissing the legal question entirely, he added: “I can tell you this. These were bad people.”
This casual disregard for judicial authority wasn't hidden or denied—it was celebrated. “Oopsie...Too late,” wrote Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whose message was promptly recirculated by White House communications director Steven Cheung. Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined in, boasting that “We sent over 250 alien enemy members of Tren de Aragua” to El Salvador.
There's no ambiguity here. No complex constitutional debate. No differing interpretations of a vague ruling. A federal judge explicitly ordered that deportations be halted. The administration proceeded anyway, then publicly gloated about it.
If this isn't a constitutional crisis, then I don't know what is. So many of the “anti-anti-Trump” voices saying to keep calm, everything is okay, because the courts will contain Trump's excesses, should hopefully be available to explain how this squares with their reassurances. The very containment mechanism they've pointed to—judicial review—has just been openly flouted, with the administration essentially saying, "What are you going to do about it?"
“This is a time of war,” Trump declared, justifying his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law last used to imprison Japanese-Americans during World War II. But there is no war in the constitutional sense. Congress has not declared war. What Trump has done is unilaterally declare an "invasion" to grant himself extraordinary powers that exist only during actual wars declared by Congress.
The danger here extends far beyond immigration policy. When a president can simply ignore court orders he finds inconvenient, while declaring non-existent “wars” to access emergency powers, we have moved beyond constitutional governance entirely. We have entered a realm where the executive operates not within a system of checks and balances, but above it.
Most alarming is the administration's failure to provide any evidence that the deported individuals were actually members of the Tren de Aragua gang. As Adam Isacson of the Washington Office for Latin America warned: “Basically any Venezuelan citizen in the US may be removed on pretext of belonging to Tren de Aragua, with no chance at defense.”
This is the definition of arbitrary power—the ability to detain and deport people based on mere accusation, without evidence, without due process, and in direct violation of judicial orders meant to ensure basic rights.
Judge Boasberg's statement reveals the gravity of the situation: “Once they're out of the country, there's little I could do.” This is precisely why the administration rushed the deportations—to present the courts with a fait accompli, demonstrating that judicial power exists only insofar as the executive chooses to respect it.
When a government can designate any group as “enemies” during a self-declared “war,” then deny them all legal protections, the door to truly horrific abuses swings wide open.
The video released by El Salvador shows the deported men—their guilt never established in any court—being treated like convicted criminals: shackled, heads shaved, forced to kneel, and placed in a notorious prison facility. These images should shake us from complacency. This is what governance looks like when it's no longer constrained by law.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And when a president openly defies court orders while claiming wartime powers during peace, we've crossed a threshold that separates constitutional governance from something far darker.
This isn't about immigration policy or border security. It's about whether we still have a government of laws rather than men. It's about whether presidential power remains constrained by courts and Congress, or whether we've entered an era where such constraints exist only on paper.
The administration isn't hiding its contempt for legal limitations. They're not even pretending to respect judicial authority. They're openly celebrating their ability to act beyond the reach of courts, to implement policies that a federal judge explicitly prohibited. The brazenness isn't accidental—it's the point. It's a demonstration of power unconstrained, a message that the executive now considers itself above judicial review.
If a court order can be ignored today regarding Venezuelan migrants, it can be ignored tomorrow regarding any other matter the president deems important enough. If “war” can be declared unilaterally to access extraordinary powers, what prevents those powers from being used against any group labeled as “enemies”?
This is the moment when the abstract concerns about democratic erosion become concrete. When the theoretical worries about constitutional breakdown manifest in real deportations of real people in direct violation of real court orders. When the rule of law transforms from a fundamental principle into an optional guideline, observed only when convenient.
The administration's actions aren't just wrong—they're revealing. They show us exactly what governance looks like when constitutional constraints are treated as obstacles to be overcome rather than foundations to be preserved. They show us what happens when the executive branch decides that judicial orders are suggestions, not requirements.
This is not normal politics. This is not partisan disagreement. This is constitutional crisis in its most literal form—a situation where the basic functioning of our constitutional system has been directly challenged by the executive branch.
And the most disturbing part? The lack of consequences. The administration violated a court order and nothing happened. They bragged about it publicly and nothing happened. They've demonstrated that judicial power exists only at the executive's pleasure, and so far, they've been proven right.
This is how constitutional governance ends—not with a single dramatic swoop, but with the gradual, public demonstration that the constraints we thought were ironclad are actually gossamer thin, torn apart by anyone powerful enough to simply ignore them.
If we cannot recognize this moment for what it is—if we cannot respond to this direct challenge to constitutional governance with appropriate alarm and action—then we have already surrendered more than we realize.
“Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.” — Václav Havel

[Peter Lemkin]

The Persecution Complex of Power
How Musk’s Victimhood Narrative Serves as a Justification for Unchecked Authority
Mike Brock
Mar 19

When the world's richest man, who now controls a literal Department of Government Efficiency, claims that shadowy forces are conspiring to kill him, we should pay attention. Not because the conspiracy is real, but because the mentality behind such claims reveals something profound about how power operates in our current moment.
Elon Musk's latest appearance on Fox News featured a remarkable claim: “They basically wanna kill me.” The alleged motivation? “We're stopping their fraud, we're stopping their corruption in the government.” This is no mere hyperbole—it's the latest manifestation of a persecution narrative that has become central to Musk's public persona and, increasingly, to his exercise of unprecedented governmental power.
What makes this claim particularly striking is its timing. Musk isn't speaking as a private citizen or even just as a CEO. He's speaking as someone who, through DOGE, now wields extraordinary influence over the federal government's operations. The conspiracy theory isn't coming from the powerless—it's coming from power itself.
This inverted victimhood narrative serves a specific function. By positioning himself as under attack from “the far left” (whom he diagnoses, without apparent irony, as having a "mental illness"), Musk transforms legitimate questions about his exercise of government authority into evidence of persecution. Accountability becomes conspiracy. Oversight becomes oppression. Democratic processes become threats to progress.
The rhetorical move is as old as authoritarianism itself: I'm not consolidating power; I'm protecting myself—and by extension, you—from hostile forces that want to destroy us. The strongman isn't dominating; he's defending.
But there's something uniquely modern about this particular manifestation. Musk represents a techno-libertarian worldview that sees democracy itself as inefficient, obsolete technology ready to be “disrupted.” In this framework, democratic constraints aren't valuable checks on power—they're unnecessary friction in an operating system that needs optimization.
When Musk claims that critics “want to kill” him because he's “stopping fraud,” he's not just playing victim. He's articulating a vision where oversight itself is the problem. Where questioning his authority is inherently corrupt. Where the traditional mechanisms of democratic accountability are reimagined as wasteful bureaucracy to be eliminated.
This is the persecution complex of power—the tendency of those with unprecedented authority to frame themselves as besieged heroes, valiantly defending civilization against shadowy enemies. It transforms the exercise of unchecked power into an act of heroic resistance. It casts democratic norms not as protections for the powerless but as obstacles to the powerful.
Understanding this dynamic doesn't require believing Musk is consciously attempting to subvert democracy. The more concerning possibility is that he genuinely sees himself as the protagonist in a cosmic drama where he alone stands between humanity and catastrophe. This hero narrative makes democratic constraints appear not just inefficient but actively dangerous—they're slowing down the savior, hampering his ability to rescue us all.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And when the most powerful people in a society consistently cast themselves as its most persecuted victims, we should recognize it not as paranoia but as a strategy—one that has preceded the collapse of democratic norms throughout history.
The danger isn't in Musk's conspiracy theories themselves. It's in how they justify a vision of governance where unaccountable power is recast as necessary protection against imagined enemies. That's not efficiency. It's not innovation. It's the oldest political playbook in existence, now running on the newest operating system.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

[Peter Lemkin]

The BEST weekly summary of Trump-Musk Monopoly game heading toward FASCISM!
In my view not 'heading toward', but 'already there'!

[Peter Lemkin]

March 19, 2025
Heather Cox Richardson
 
On the Fox News Channel’s The Five yesterday, the panel of Fox personalities expressed outrage that federal judge James Boasberg had ordered the Trump administration to stop its deportation of migrants based on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. That act permits the president to arrest and deport citizens of other countries that are at war with the U.S. or invading it. If Trump’s claim that Venezuelan gang members are acting in concert with the Venezuelan government to invade the U.S. stands, it gives the president extraordinary scope to take power over immigration away from Congress by declaring any foreign country is invading the United States and thus making its citizens subject to deportation without going through the normal legal process.
The Fox News Channel hosts were also unhappy that when President Donald Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts issued a relatively mild statement that did not mention the president by name but criticized his call for Boasberg’s impeachment by saying: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Roberts was nominated for his position by Republican president George W. Bush and was the author of the Donald Trump v. United States decision establishing that a president cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of his official duties, a decision that upended centuries of precedent to allow Trump to avoid criminal prosecution. Roberts can hardly be considered a member of the radical Left.
And yet, on The Five, Greg Gutfeld exploded: “Maybe a guy in a robe in D.C. can follow all the protocols, but Trump is the ‘f-ing’ president of the United States who protects 300 million plus people. He is a leader who does not have the luxury of opening up his little books to read ‘Oh my god, maybe he didn’t do it the right way.’ Roberts, shut the ‘f’ up. This is something that a president has to do. He HAS to do this.”
Gutfeld’s outburst shows just how far today’s right wing has slid toward autocracy. It is a grim marker for our democracy, when a commentator with a wide audience openly calls for the replacement of the rule of law with a dictator.
While Trump apologists are insisting that the men deported to El Salvador are part of a Venezuelan gang that has spread crime across the United States, the family members of some of the individuals who show up on videos of those deported insist their relatives are not gang members.
On Monday, March 17, two days after the men were deported, Acting Field Office Director Robert L. Cerna of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations added support to their families’ statements when he revealed that “many” of those deported did not have criminal records in the United States, although he insisted that the men were nonetheless associated with the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. In a sworn declaration, Cerna told the court that if the deportees lack a criminal record, “that is because they have only been in the United States for a short period of time.”
He went on to say: “The lack of criminal record does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with TdA, the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose. It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.”
That paragraph, from an American official, is worth rereading. It asserts to the court that a person’s lack of criminal record proves that they are more dangerous than people who do have a criminal record because their clean record simply shows that the government lacks a complete profile of their crimes.
Wow.
The United States has laws in place to prosecute criminals whether or not they are citizens and, if they are convicted, to imprison them and then, if they are not citizens, to deport them. This system was in operation long before Donald Trump became president. When people like Gutfield call for the president to act outside that system, they are saying that our legal system is insufficient to handle the conditions in modern America.
But arguing that the rule of law is obsolete is nothing new. It was common among certain circles in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century America. Then, as now, gangs of Americans insisted that the courts had been corrupted by politicians who let members of certain populations off easily because they wanted their votes, and thus were unleashing criminals on the community.
In 1884, for example, Cincinnati, Ohio, erupted into three days of rioting when William Berner avoided a murder conviction after he and his fellow employee Joseph Palmer beat their employer, stableman William Kirk, strangled him, and threw his body in the woods outside the city. Convicted of manslaughter, Berner was sentenced to twenty years in prison rather than execution.
After the court announced Berner’s sentence, 8,000 of “the wisest and most prudent citizens” of the city, “well-known and respected citizens,” met to call for justice. They swept into the streets, becoming a mob that killed 56 people and injured more than 200 over the next two days. They fought against symbols of government authority, attacking the jail and police officers and burning the courthouse to the ground.
The argument used by the Cincinnati rioters—that a court system corrupted by politicians was letting criminals loose into the community—was the justification for the lynching of Black Americans from the 1890s onward.
Today, the attack on the rule of law is taking a different form. MAGA supporters are calling for the courts to be replaced not with lynching parties but with a dictator, a single man who will override the laws to bring what his supporters consider justice to those they claim are enemies. The end to the due process of the law leads to situations where a government official can argue that the lack of a criminal record for someone perceived to be an enemy of those in power just proves that person is a criminal.
The call to erase the rule of law and institute a dictatorship is more than just an attack on individuals’ rights. It is fundamentally an attack on the supreme power of the American people. “We the People of the United States,” our constitution reads, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That constitution, which establishes the legislative branch in Article I as the first among equals, sets out a process by which American citizens elect lawmakers who write, debate, and pass the laws under which we live. Under this system, our laws represent the will of the American people.
Trump and today’s MAGA Republicans are proudly ignoring those laws, not only in Trump’s attacks on the judiciary but also in things like the administration’s lie, reported today by Andy Kroll of ProPublica, that nearly 7,000 employees at the Internal Revenue Service were fired for poor performance despite the repeated warnings of a top IRS lawyer that this was “a false statement” that amounted to “fraud” on the courts.
The administration’s attempt to ignore the laws the Constitution charges it with executing amounts to an attack on the right of the American people to establish the rules under which we live.
In a webcast on Monday, Trump ally Steve Bannon defended the deportations even if, as his guest said, they swept in “some gardener or something who’d never been in trouble.” Bannon replied: “ Big deal…. Maybe some people got caught up in it. Who knows?... I think they got everybody who was a bad guy, but guess what? If there's some innocent gardeners in there? Hey, tough break for a swell guy. That's where we stand.”
Throughout our history, that is not where the laws of the United States, or the majority of its people, have stood.
—
Notes:
https://www.mediamatters.org/five/foxs-greg-gutfeld-supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-shut-f
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25591745-cerna-march-17-declaration/
https://ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/6069
History of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati: S.B. Nelson, 1894), pp. 367–378.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-firings-doge-fraud-law-job-performance
https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-bannon/steve-bannon-mass-deportations-el-salvador-if-theres-some-innocent-gardeners-there-hey
Bluesky:
kyledcheney.bsky.social/post/3lko2a2pbjj2o