Why Big Biz Backs Trump, and why Sustainability is feared by them all

Robert Reich explains it in a clip under three minutes long---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LEnI9THvLA

One might guess it's about tax cuts and tax avoidance.  Yes, but it's also about blocking the path to Sustainability.  Many years ago, the Titans of Mega Biz realized they had to start talking-the-talk in regard to renewable energy, but walking-the-walk largely could be avoided IF they spent big bucks on politicians friendly to the economic status quo.  A bit later, they recognized that Sustainability involved a lot more than just transitioning to renewables.  It also meant reducing our energy use, being accountable for pollution, treating workers and consumers fairly, eliminating corporate welfare, increasing the social safety net, and more.

In the view of Mega Biz, the economic status quo was being threatened as never before.  So, both individually and collectively, the Titans decided to essentially buy more and more political influence.  They selected, groomed, and financed the majority of national political candidates.  Their degree of success in getting candidates friendly to their view varied, but almost always was at least somewhat on the mark...even with Democrats.

So, what was (and still is for the most part) the "economic status quo" back then?  Here it is in a nutshell:

1)  neoliberal capitalism (which is NOT Adam Smith capitalism); 

2)  deregulation, corporate globalization, & corporate welfare;

3)  bailouts for mega biz;

4)  banks too big to fail, or jail;

5)  reduced benefits for employees;

6)  reduced services to customers;

7)  job insecurity;

8)  treating pollutants as "externalities" (and not the responsibility of Big Biz);

9)  austerity for Main Street; and

10)  anything else which benefits Mega Biz at the expense of Main Street.

The status quo is pretty much the exact opposite of a sustainable economy and lifestyle.

The influence of the Titans has been massive, and has reached all the way to the Supreme Court of the USA.  The majority on that Court now are anti-healthcare, anti-EHS (environmental, health, & safety), anti-democracy, and anti-sustainability.  Whether that majority knows it or not, they are supporting Fascism - the marriage of the power of the State to the power of Mega Biz.

All the above is precisely why Big Biz backs the candidate who is the biggest embarrassment and danger in the history of the USA.

.................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Immunity decision by SCOTUS is worse than the Kelo v. City of New London decision

The Kelo case was almost 25 years ago.  SCOTUS decided a city seizing private land under Eminent Domain and then selling it to a private developer constituted "public use", and thus was permissible.  Yikes!

Yesterday's immunity decision is so egregious and so damaging to the concept of American Government that any attempt by me in describing such would not suffice.  The text at the link below does suffice, and will not be found in the Mainstream Media---

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/

........................

Not only my opinion.  p.s.  The dissenters on the Court decision are spot-on.

Two Things: Women; and The Second Amendment

 1.  The anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsive, toxic males who hold a majority on the Supreme Court have prevailed.  They essentially have told women:  you do not have the freedom of control over your bodies.  We do.  I easily can imagine them thinking:  that's how it should be...because you still are second class citizens.  After all, "God" made us first; then "He" took one of our ribs and made you.  That should tell you your place in human society.  We males are the Masters of the Universe.  We are the Kings of Humanity.  You are in second place. [Aii-yii-yii!]

On a certain day yet to come this year, I'll be eighty years old.  I won't be eighty years & nine months old.  It is obvious that abortion should not be allowed (with some exceptions) after an embryo of undifferentiated cells grows and develops into a fetus, which occurs approximately eleven weeks after the last menstrual period.  While an embryo, the group of cells appears no differently than does a group of cells from any number of other animals at the same stage of development.  It's a blob of undifferentiated cells.  Yes, it has the potential of becoming a human life; but it's not yet such.

Here's a thought:  human sperm also have the potential (in certain circumstances) of developing into a fully formed human; perhaps the toxic males on the Court should work toward making it more difficult for men to obtain a vasectomy.  Or, how about making masturbation difficult, or maybe a crime.  Oh, those poor dead sperm.  Oh, you masturbating murderers of spermatozoa. 😊  After all, the Bible says not to "spill your seed upon the ground".  [Oh lawdy momma!]

Ridiculous, right?  It's also ridiculous for the High Court basically to say to women:  you have no Constitutional right to have control over your body; that's up to each individual State.  No it isn't.  It's a natural right, and thus a federal matter.

.......................

2.  The Second Amendment consists of one sentence.  The first half of that sentence clearly states the purpose of the amendment.  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".   Our Founders did not trust standing armies, so they promulgated a civilian militia... a well regulated militia.  The amendment had a military purpose.  The right to a weapon was protected so that a person could serve in the military.  It wasn't meant for mentally ill people, or children, or those prone to unwarranted violence.  It wasn't meant to make it easy for people during peacetime to acquire a stockpile of a gazillion rifles and fifty gazillion rounds of ammo.  This is not rocket science; it's simply common sense.

.....................

Not only my opinion.  Take Care  

Finally - It's About Time!

A day or two ago, there was a unanimous SCOTUS decision against excessive fines, fees, & civil asset forfeiture imposed by State, County, & City authorities.  Texas, in particular, is infamous for such practices, plus "Debtor's Prison" if you can't afford the freight.  Example:  a fine of $569 (if I recall correctly) for grass too high in a vacant lot (the back lot of a residential double lot).  The "court fees" are added to that...hundreds of dollars more.  If you can't pay immediately, chances are great that you go to jail.  In California, if you run a red light, the fine is $100; but $390 is added to that in the form of "fees".  $490 for trying (and failing) to make a yellow light.  Outrageous.

I didn't see this story on the Corporate TV News, but it was a lead story on Democracy Now.  The Corporate Media seem to avoid any stories that have even a hint of the growing poverty in the USA.

In some local jurisdictions, you can be fined hundreds of dollars for having anything dangling from your interior, rear view mirror...including a simple, small chain.

Civil (not Criminal) Asset Forfeiture (CAF) applies even if you're not convicted of whatever "crime" or code violation is involved.  Your assets can be seized in addition to fines imposed, or simply because they "look suspicious".  When you apply to get your property back, it has already been auctioned off...& you get no cash compensation.  This has been going on in the Land of the Free for about 25-30 years.  It started because counties & cities lost huge tax revenue when manufacturing moved South of the border or overseas---Corporatist Globalization.  So, excessive fines & fees AND CAF have been used to raise local revenue.  SCOTUS finally ruled against it.

Apparently, even NeoCon Justices do something ethical once in awhile.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Redux: Our Jury Rights are Being Trampled Upon

I'm re-posting this piece because it's extremely important to the concept of Freedom... especially now, given the plethora of unconstitutional "Laws" currently in force in this great Land.  [The previous title was "The Last Bastion".]

The last sane bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt, which nowadays is insane) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v.Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in

Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

The Last Bastion

The last bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in

Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

Surratt, Bush-Cheney, Obama, & the Military v. Civilians

The 2010 movie, The Conspirator, directed by Robert Redford, triggered my researching the case of Mary E. Surratt, the first woman to be executed by the U.S. Fed Gov't...after being tried and found guilty by a military tribunal.  Mary was convicted of being one of the conspirators in the assassination of Lincoln.  The prosecution case against her was flawed; as a result, a judge signed a writ of habeas corpus, ordering a new trial in civilian court.  The writ was vacated by President Andrew Johnson, and Mary was hanged.  Her attorney, Frederick Aiken, was so disheartened by the turn of events that he left the Law and later became the first City Editor of the Washington Post.  A year after Surratt's execution, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision stating that military tribunals for cases against civilians were unconstitutional, and that civilians must be tried in civilian court...even during times of war.

Before going further, let's clear up what I believe is a misconception regarding Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  It appears to me that too many Americans believe that our Supreme Law of the Land grants us Rights, and that only citizens of our country are entitled to those Rights in the USA.  Not true.  What the Constitution does is protect Rights that all people possess at birth.  The Declaration of Independence states, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.".  So, Freedom for example, is our birthright...and is not dependent upon any government grant.  The former Attorney General under Dubya Bush, Alberto Gonzales, was dead wrong when he testified before Congress that people don't necessarily have the Right of habeas corpus..."because the Constitution does not grant us that Right". Everyone is entitled to the Right of habeas corpus; the Constitution doesn't grant us any Rights.  They are ours at birth.  It's crucial to the survival of Freedom that people understand that point.

Humans have understood the difference between troops in war and civilians for centuries.  Modern day Oligarchs and their puppets have changed the rules... and muddied the waters.  According to them, we now have "enemy combatants"; they aren't troops, but should be treated the same as troops...sometimes.  When captured, they can be treated as neither troops nor civilians, but rather as something akin to rabid animals.  According to the Plutocrats, Rights do not apply to them...even criminals are treated better than "enemy combatants".  This all comes from the rulers of supposedly civilized, ethical, moral nations.  Incredible.  Suspects have been held in Guantanamo for years with no charges, and then released for lack of evidence.  Suspects have been subjected to so-called "enhanced interrogation", and then released for lack of evidence.  A German citizen, after being flown to various Black Sites around the Globe by the CIA finally was released afoot in the middle of nowhere in Germany...in the middle of the night.  For months, his family had no idea where he was.  Put yourself in his or their shoes.  It's no wonder to me that the government of the USA (and for that matter, the UK as well) is becoming more & more hated around the world.  They don't hate you for your Freedom Bush-Cheney; they hate you for your terrorism.  [We'll get to Obama shortly.]

Presumption of innocence and anything resembling due process apparently are gone...or very well hidden. The use of weaponized drones against civilians (suspects) has become the new norm under our Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning President.  As reported on Democracy Now!, apparently for every ONE terrorist SUSPECT killed by drones, TWENTY-EIGHT unidentified people are killed by the same means.  The Administration can claim "precision" in these murders because anyone killed by a weaponized drone automatically is designated by the military as an EKIA...Enemy Killed in Action.  If anyone can prove otherwise, then the person is de-listed as an enemy... of course, he/she is dead by then.  A drone operator on the job for six years finally quit because he had grave doubts about how "suspects" are identified.  It seems to me that it should be paramount to be certain we are not killing innocent civilians.  One poor soul in Pakistan has been trying for years to get justice for the slaughter of members of his family...one a child and another a grandmother.  We should all be ashamed and enraged at the same time, but very few seem to care.

The Oligarchs, our President chief among them, have made sure that the psychological/emotional cost to most of us for this so-called "war" is very little to none.  Even the financial cost is well hidden...it's all borrowed money, to be paid by our posterity.  [They'll pay the interest on the debt; the U.S. Gov't has no intention whatsoever of repaying the principal...because that's not possible.  We never could do it; the National Debt simply is too large.  That's why, sometime in the future, countries of the world will reject the dollar as the world's reserve currency.  Shortly after that happens, barring unforeseen circumstances, the Great Depression of the '30s will look like a picnic compared to the economy that will be experienced.]  Obama claims that none of this really is war; instead, it's "counter-terrorism".  That's code, or Gov't-Speak, for Perpetual War.  The Oligarchs and their puppets have dropped the phrase, "WAR on Terror" or "WAR on Terrorism" (which, by the way, first was coined by the Reagan Administration) because people eventually saw through it.  Now it's "counter-terrorism" or "defending the homeland".  In any case, SUSPECTS are being grossly mistreated... or murdered outright.  In the process, U.S. troops and other military personnel are expected to have Law Enforcement skills.  It's no wonder that more vets have committed suicide than have been killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Military actions encourage more terrorism; Law Enforcement actions prevent more terrorist acts.

In addition to Obama's egregious drone operations, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) assassination squads continue to operate.  Where is the civilian oversight?  Where is the proof of guilt relative to the victims?  [I still haven't seen a shred of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama was responsible for 9-11.  The video in which a supposed Osama was sitting around with cohorts admitting guilt was a sham.  I could instantly see that was not Osama bin Laden.]  Where is the accountability regarding the murder of innocent civilians by drone attacks?  Are We the People so propagandized that we've abandoned all concepts of fairness and justice?  Has the Fed Gov't (at the highest levels) itself become a terrorist organization?  Why is it that when "they" murder innocent people, it's terrorism; but when "we" do it, it's "collateral damage", or "the price of war"?

Terrorists are CRIMINALS, not soldiers.  Suspects are just that.  In an ethical society, they must be accorded due process...no matter how emotionally painful that may be.  Apparently we do not live in an ethical society.  Obama can't seem to make up his mind.  Some terrorist suspects he has taken to trial in civilian court.  Others are locked down in Gitmo for a decade or so...with no formal charges.  Others simply are killed.  Suspects.  This whole scenario is a genuine travesty... as was the case of Mary Elizabeth Surratt.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

Lessons for Clinton, Bush, and Obama

1.  Exactly where in the Constitution (C.) does it give the 

Feds the power to use our military as the world's police 

force?  The War Powers Act does not supercede the C., 

nor does any other law.  The phrase, "Commander-in-

Chief" does not negate the rest of the C.  Using our blood 

& treasure to quell insurrections around the world may 

be commonly accepted in this country, but it's blatantly unconstitutional.

2.  RE:  the Justice Dept. memo authorizing the killing of 

an American citizen without a formal charge or a trial---  

The Constitution does permit "Letters of Marque and 

Reprisal" (assassination orders) against enemies, BUT 

THEY MUST BE ISSUED BY THE CONGRESS.  

There are good reasons for that, but that's another story.

3.  Fed Law and Judges often are used to subvert/pervert 

the Fed Justice System.  For a case in point, see the 

excellent documentary Bidder 70, the story of Tim DeChristopher's 

battle over an oil & gas leasing auction.  In the court trial, 

the Judge instructed the jury that they were not to judge 

the law...he would explain the law to them.  (All judges say 

that.)  Here's a quote from John Jay, the very first Chief 

Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:  "The jury has the right 

to judge both the law and the facts in controversy.".  From

 Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice:  "The jury has the 

right to determine both the law and the facts.".  From 

Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme 

Court:  "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause

 which is to be decided.".  There are many others of a similar

 nature.  The last civilian bastion of freedom in this country is 

the right of a jury to nullify a bad law, but judges usually 

claim 

that jury nullification is illegal.  Let's not forget that we once 

had the following laws in this land:  The Fugitive Slave Act, 

The Indian Removal Act, and the Chinese Exclusion Act.

4.  Supporting the dictatorship in Egypt is as wrong as wrong 

can be.  That regime has demonstrated over and over that it 

does not believe in freedom.

5.  The Office of President has been converted, especially by

 Clinton, both Bush Boys, and Obama, into a virtual Kingship.  

The Head of our Gov't (whoever it is) now thinks that the

 Presidency is superior to Congress and the Courts.  In actual 

fact, it is co-equal.  Unfortunately, recent Presidents have by-

passed the other two branches with impunity.  [One 

example:

Even though Congress was not in favor of it, Clinton sent 

troops 

to 

Bosnia.  Another example:  in 1993, he gave Mexico $20

billion to bail out Wall Street banks... without the 

approval of Congress.]

6.  Iraq, again?  Don't we ever learn?  No matter what is 

done, 

as soon as we leave (again), the civil war will continue.  How 

many years have we "aided" the Iraq Gov't?  How many 

years have we "trained" the Iraq security forces?  How 

many?

  I'm sorry, but enough is enough.  It should be obvious that 

there's another agenda going on.  I leave it to you to figure it 

out.

..................................................

Ours is a Gov't of "Enumerated Powers" [Google it]; if the 

power isn't listed, the Feds don't have it.  Furthermore, the

 Constitution enumerates...it does not "imply".  The 

Executive Branch is out-of-control...especially because of 

Clinton, Bush, and Obama, with their despotic concept of 

the "Unitary Executive".  The "updating" of the Constitution 

must be done by the formal Amendment process or the 

holding of a Constitutional Convention...no other way is legal.

If we're going to ignore the U.S. Constitution because the 

document is not convenient, then I suggest we just throw 

it out.  Ignoring it, as has been done for decades, has the

 same effect.

p.s.  I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, nor a so-called 

"Liberal" or so-called "Conservative".  Those outdated 

labels essentially are meaningless in this time of the 

Oligarchy.

Be Well

The Last Bastion

In my opinion, the last bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.