Esoteric Meandering Shouting Into the Void

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/both-sides-ism-a-big-problem-in-journalism/article_9bab8232-b6bd-11e8-84ca-5784be02719c.html#newsletter-popup

This is a relatively new word in the English language lexicon and absolutely one of the most ridiculous and annoying. This absurd word refers to a tendency to treat all policy debates as if the opposing sides present equally strong arguments or are equally valid or equally. 

The common hypothesis of how this term, mindset or whatever you want to call it, puts the onus on Fox (so called) News and their slogan of fair and balanced. It has been obvious, to anyone who actually pays attention, that the catch phrase of ‘fair and balanced’ was and is completely tongue in cheek unfortunately many Americans didn’t get the memo.

This radical redefining of facts has gone to the extreme, even rewriting of history to fit both sides narrative. Teacher in primary schools in some states being to that they have to present both sides of the Civil War and of Hitlers Nazi conquest of Europe in WWII. There are not 2 sides to these historical events.

Bothsidesism of the Civil was fits the narrative that the North was the aggressor imposing itself of the sovereign rights of the South and their practice of slavery that was the economic engine of the Southern States. In some schools in the South the period from 1861 to 1865 is even taught as the War of Northern Aggression. This conflict had nothing to do with slavery, it was all about states’ rights and Lincoln had no right to outlaw the system of forced labor of an enslaved people. The fact that the system of slavery had been abolished across the free world before 1860 meant nothing to Southern Plantation owners that had built their fortunes off the backs of forced labor. Both sides advocates will tell you that the slaves were happy and that if they hadn’t been brought to America.

The same people would say the Hitler may have done some bad things, but his control of Germany made the train run on time and stated the construction of the Autobahn. The fact that he killed millions of Jews and stole their belongings is just an unfortunate consequence.

During Covid19 the White House led the country to believe in its infancy that it would be gone in a few weeks and that China had done a heroic job of containing the virus. That adoration if President Xi Jinping soon turned into ‘the China Virus’ and that this was biological weapon released intentionally.

The truth the both sides caucus neglected to report was that Trump pulled CDC scientist out of Wuhan prior to the virus being reported and if he had left them in place that the pandemic would mostly likely not have been as sever. Trump also praised China on their quick action on containing the virus. Soon after that adoration of President Xi Jinping the narrative was China Virus and that it was a biological weapon. Donald proclaimed that he immediately stopped all travel from China, real truth was it was not immediate or total.

Bothsidesism said that the virus wasn’t dangerous, that the lock down was in infringement on our rights, the vaccine, that Trump claims full credit for creating, was a globalist plot to track or poison the masses. The unfortunate truth is that the virus has killed over a million U.S. citizens and multiples of that worldwide. The facts are Trump did not create the vaccine, MRA does not change human DNA, the MRA platform has been around for at least a decade, but if you ask the both sides contingent all of these truths are lies because that’s not what they read on the internet or heard on Fox.

The last both sides argument I will hit is January 6^th, it was not a normal tourist visit and was a fucking attempted insurrection with the goal of overturning a free and fair election. There was no theft of the election from Trump, there weren’t thousands of dead voters in Georgia, 10s of thousands of undocumented people did not vote across the southwest. Get this through your thick heads your maniacal wannabe dictator lost, do what you told Hilary votes to do, “Get over it.”

Thank you for sticking though this rant has been something I need to get off my chest for awhile.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-full-durham-report-here/

The long-awaited Durham report has been released. This was the multimillion dollars investigation the was going to definitively exonerate Donny and prove without a shadow of a doubt the Hilary Clinton colluded with Russia and it was covered up by the deep state FBI. Here is one line from the highly touted report, ‘That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded there was no “political bias” at the bureau.’

Holy Crap, you mean there wasn’t any implication to convict the Clintons or the FBI?

Well, if you listen to the Red Hat entertainment networks you will hear that this 300-page report 100% vindicates Trump and points the finger squarely at the Deep State. Which anyone with the time to actually read the report would realize that is another falsehood perpetrated and advanced by the Right Wing.

The report in reality proves nothing, even those ‘implicated’ in the investigation were cleared and eventually never charged. The genius of Merrick Garland is that he didn’t touch the report in any way and just released it unredacted and let it fall on its face all by itself. Very much unlike Bill Barr and his press conference prior to his heavily redacted comments of the Mueller Report. Barr, as attorney general, really perjured himself by falsely claiming that the Mueller report said nothing to implicate Trump of any wrongdoing. As the unredacted portions of the report where finally released we all, at least those of us who pay attention, learned that Barr’s representation of the report was another Trump era alternative set of facts.

Special counsel John Durham’s final report reveals that four years, a $6.5 million reveled absolutely nothing except a bill for American Taxpayers. I can here the Republicans screaming already, ‘The nearly two-year special counsel investigation of Russian election interference led by Robert Mueller cost nearly $32 million in total.’ To that finger pointing accusation the only real response is the investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice. Paul Manafort, pleading guilty to conspiracy charges and agreeing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. Mueller may have also paid for his own investigation. That’s because, as part of his plea deal with the special counsel, Manafort agreed to forfeit real estate and cash estimated to be worth between $42 million and $46 million.

Based on my math the Mueller investigation, although costing more than Durhams had a net gain of between 5 and 9 million dollars. Even though based on an obscure office of legal counsel rule that you can’t charge sitting President, and even if we could have AG Bill Barr wouldn’t have, Trump wasn’t charged for any crimes.

The facts of the Mueller Investigation will forever be ignored by the right because Barr gas lit the findings, and many Americans have the attention span of a toddler especially when it new they don’t want to hear will not change. The Durham Report will invariably be held up as a rebuke of any wrongdoing by Trump or any of his lackies by the Red Hat Media and the Orange Menace himself and that will be the narrative that those that can’t see beyond the bill of their MAGA hats will believe.

I hope that we move forward from the damage that 45 and his minions have done and that history paints would be king Donald the First as poorly as Benedict Arnold.

Thank all of you that read though my entire rant. Stay Strong (hopefully) this storm will pass.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://nicenews.com/innovation/new-water-treatment-removes-forever-chemicals/

This breakthrough in being able to remove PFAS chemicals from drinking is great news but it’s also one of the solutions to a problem that we totally created for ourselves. I know the first question is what the hell are you talking about and why should I care.

First let me tell you what PFAS are: Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) The per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals used to make fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. Fluoropolymer coatings can be in a variety of products. I can still feel the confusion and are wondering why you should read any further.

Ok let me tell you what these chemicals are in.

 Where are PFAS found?

• Cleaning products.
• Water-resistant fabrics, such as rain jackets, umbrellas and tents.
• Grease-resistant paper.
• Nonstick cookware.
• Personal care products, like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish, and eye makeup.
• Stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery, and other fabrics.

This is stuff we all have in our homes and these chemicals aren’t doing us any favors. A growing body of science has found that there are potential adverse health impacts associated with PFAS exposure, including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression and cancer. These chemicals can easily migrate into the air, dust, food, soil and water.

So, this latest technology has found a way to remove them from the water, which is good news, but we still need to get them out of everything else. I hope that we are working on air filtration that can eliminate these micro chemicals that are slowly killing us.

I know this is a far departure from the previous civics lesson but the blog is named Esoteric Meanderings so you had to expect that the direction could suddenly change direction.

Thank you for reading to the end of this post and I hope you check out the short article attached.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.

Seems pretty simple right? The Legislative Branch writes the Laws, and the Executive enacts those laws and the Judicial enforces those laws. A pretty basic structure that has seemed to work for over 200 years but recently the Judicial Branch which is supposed to be nonpartisan and just call balls and strikes has turned into a system that only works for the monied elite.

The Judicial is supposed to interpret the Constitution and based on that document rule on cases that come before them. Not a biblical doctrine or any other personally held belief structure only using their interpretation of a document that was drafted in 1789 and subsequently amended over the past 234 years. That seems like a daunting task and courts in the past have made mistakes and later adjusted their opinions to bring that flawed judgment into a more reasonable perspective. The decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka on May 17, 1954 is perhaps the most famous of all Supreme Court cases, as it started the process ending segregation. It overturned the equally far-reaching decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. So, the court gave a right back that had been taken away and that is how the process should work.

This current Court did just the opposite based on their own theological belief system overturning Roe vs Wade decision pushing women’s rights back 50 years. My opinion is that that ruling was not rooted in the constitution but several Justices personal and antiquate religious dogma. This court is doing the same with equal protection of other groups based purely on that misguided theological belief system, or just because they think its oogy. I am talking about LGTBQ+ rights.

A common misconception that the mostly Republican are spewing is that the number of Justices is a fixed number not to be changed although in 2015 Mitch McConnel arbitrarily reduced the size of the court be disallowing President Obama his constitutional duty to fill a vacated seat cause by the death of Justice Scalia. McConnel’s actions in 2015 were reminiscent to the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first Supreme Court, with six Justices. In 1801, President John Adams and a lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five Justices in an attempt to limit incoming President Thomas Jefferson’s appointments. The original court had 6 justices appointed by George Washington. The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.

The last time the court changed from 10 to 9 justices was when the country had 9 federal court districts and each Supreme oversaw one of the Districts that was in 1869 and there were only 37 states. It is now 2023 we have had 50 states since 1959, 90 years after the last time the court was changed. Now we have 13 Federal Courts but still only Supremes, this to me says it is time to expand the court.

I also have an issue with lifetime appointments, I know that is what the Constitution states but there has to be a way around that. I think the Supreme Court should be a rolling bench that Justices sit on for 18 years and then they can go back to a district court. There would have to be a system that each newly elected President can appoint a certain number of justices and not have to depend on retirement or death of a sitting Justice.

I know this a conspiratorial and morbid thought but imagine Trump or someone worse getting to seat the entire court because of some ‘random’ act that takes out the entire court. In so doing this despot seats 9 Federalist Society judges that are all in their 30’s with little to no judicial experience. These jurors would have lifetime appointments which would mean they could redefine the court and federal law for generations. Don’t think it could happen Trumps last appointment is 49 years old only had clerkships and private practice. Barrett spent two years as a judicial law clerk after law school, first for judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and then for justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999. Zero judicial experience and has a seat on the highest court in the country and could potentially be there for the next 30 plus years.

It is time for some traditions to change.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

We have talked about the two sides of the Legislative Branch now let’s talk about the Executive i.e., the President.

First a little history that many may not know. Everyone is taught that George Washington was our 1^st, President. This is what we are all told, ‘George Washington was an American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797.’ My query for all of you, would be historians, is what happened between our declaring our Independence in 1776 and the Inauguration of George Washington in 1789. Did we just flail around rudderless for 13 years? How did we manage those years without a government? Technically George Washington was the first President of the United States when we finally became a Constitutional Democratic Republic after the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 but before that there several Presidents of Congress which was a very weak role. The men that  held the position: John Hanson (Nov 5 1781 – Nov 3 1782), Elias Boudinot (Nov 4 1782 – Nov 2 1783), Thomas Mifflin (Nov 3 1783 – Nov 29 1784), Richard Henry Lee (Nov 30 1784 – Nov 22 1785), John Hancock (Nov 23 1785 – Jun 5 1786), Nathaniel Gorham (Jun 6 1786 – Feb 1 1787), Arthur St. Clair (Feb 2 1787 – Jan 21 1788), Cyrus Griffin (Jan 22 1788 – Apr 30 1789), and Samuel Huntington (Sept 28 1779 – July 10 1781). The office only had a one-year term because initially the colonies were steadfast against a strong central government but the loosely held colonies acted more like 13 different countries with their own currency which incumbered commerce. This fragile ‘confederacy’ of states nearly ended in a war with several border conflicts happening between states in the 1780’s.

Now that we have had our brief history lesson let’s talk about what the constitution has defined as the powers of the executive. The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments — each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet — carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government.

So, for all you that think the President has unlimited power he does not he is responsible for enforcing laws and enacting them. The Executive does submit a budget to the Legislative Branch that outlines his (hopefully soon her) vision for the country but it isn’t in the office holders’ powers to unilaterally enact their agenda. We have a republic, ‘a form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people, though who is included and excluded from the category of the people has varied across history’, not a dictatorship.

Knowing this it begs the question of why we continue to both praise and denigrate Presidents for accomplishments. As we have seen time and time again they can’t do it alone and even if their agenda is positive to the citizens, the economy, or both one party in our 2 party system can derail even the best intentions.

How our President is elected is one of the points of controversy because our President is the only office that is not elected by a simple majority. (Wait, What?) No, the Presidency is elected via an arcane rule that the founders were literally forced to put in place so that rural and slave states had more say with far fewer voters. The Electoral College is how we refer to the process by which the United States elects the President, even though that term does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. In this process, the States (which includes the District of Columbia just for this process) elect the President and Vice President. Every four years, voters elect a group of electors whose only purpose is to elect the president and vice president. This group of electors is known as the Electoral College. This process gives states, based on their population, a defined number of electors, most states are winner take all meaning the candidate with the most vote even if it is only one takes the pot some split electors. This is why states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, get more attention than other areas because the number of electors they have can and often does swing the election. This system is why the only Republican President in 30 years to win the popular vote was George W. Bush who won 50.7% of the popular vote in the 2004 presidential election, according to the Federal Election Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance regulations. This was his reelection bid he did not win the popular vote in 2000 against Al Gore in fact the Supreme Court stopped the count of ballots in Florida giving those electors to Bush securing his victory. (History has corrected the count and Gore rightfully won.)

As with other things in our governmental system I have talked about this a profoundly undemocratic and in 2016 Trump was able to take office with only 46.1% of the popular vote and attempted to exploit that same system in 2020 but the overwhelming turn out over came the electoral count and favored the Democrat Joe Biden.

Next time we will talk about the Supreme Court ;(    

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

As promised let’s talk about the Senate, the other part of the legislative branch. Unlike the House of Representatives which has a little more proportional representation to the population of their State the Senate has 2 members per state which realistically makes the proportions vastly unequal. I say that because a state like Wyoming has population of 585,587 their population allows them 1 house seats and 2 senate seats now California has a population of 39,029,342 with 53 house seats and 2 senate seats. Can you see how proportional representation in the Senate is vastly undemocratic in nature? Alaska has more Moose than people still has 2 senators. This is skewed because higher population centers (cities) tend to lean more democratic whereas rural farm areas with smaller populations lean more conservative and republican. In this WY/CA comparison that gives WY 6.66 to 1 representation in the Senate. If you’re superstitious that is an evil comparison.

The other difference between the House and the Senate is that Senators are elected to 6-year terms unlike the House Members 2-year terms. The first proposal, from Virginians Edmund Randolph and James Madison, called for seven-year Senate terms. Citing Maryland’s system, Randolph and Madison argued that a long term would create stability in the Senate and provide an effective check on the more democratic House of Representatives. In the United States Senate all states are represented equally. Regardless of size or population, each state has two senators, who serve six-year terms. Unlike the House of Representatives, where all members must stand for election every two years, only one-third of the Senate’s seats are filled with each general election. Longer, overlapping Senate terms provide Congress with stability and continuity, and lessen the immediate pressure of public opinion on members of the Senate. Until the 1913 ratification of the Constitution’s 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by the legislatures of their respective states making it an undemocratic body.

Now that we know a little more about the Senate let’s get into a procedure that has been used by both parties but more by the Republicans and more frequently in to past 20 years, the Filibuster. In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules that did not provide for a cloture mechanism, which opened the door to filibusters. Indeed, a filibuster took place at the very first session of the Senate. The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question. Originally this stall tactic required that the senator that was filibustering a bill had to hold the floor speaking continuously and when they stopped the bill could come to a cloture, a procedure for ending a debate, and taking a vote. Today, senators can merely signal their intent to object, even privately, and that’s enough for Senate leaders to take action. Leaders sometimes just drop the issue from floor consideration. At other times, they push ahead, taking cumbersome steps to cut off the filibuster and move forward with the proceedings. In order for a bill to break the filibuster there must be 60 votes which in today’s very partisan climate is nearly impossible. Harry Reid had to change the rule for appellate court appointments during the Obama administration because Senate republicans would not allow any judicial appoints to go through. Subsequently Mitch McConnel changed the rule to include Supreme Court appointments to a simple majority allowing Trump to appoint 3 Justices to the High Court.

The filibuster is not in the constitution and is only a sad tradition that has long exceeded its usefulness. Historically the procedure had only been used to block any civil rights legislation that was until Mitch McConnell devised a way to weaponize the practice when the Republicans had a Senate Minority.

Just one more thing that makes the Senate a undemocratic body.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

I don’t know if anyone took Civic or Government recently when I was in High School it was a required class, but I know that my son only had pass a basic civic test as a freshman and subsequently hasn’t had to take a full semester of civics. I think that is a travesty because there are a lot of Gen Z that know very little about how their government works. There has been a war on education in the past 20 to 30 years and I truly believe that the powers that be want an undereducated electorate so that they can continue to subjugate the masses. So, I am going to give a basic government class here and let those of you reading what some of ‘rules’ that continue to be used and abused are actually constitutional.

The U.S. Constitution establishes three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). That seems simple enough but the nuance in the separation of those powers in our two-party system has been severely bastardized.

The House and Senate, mainly the House of Representatives controls the purse (money). The House members are up for election every 2 years, that was an attempt to make those members more accountable to their constituents. That 2-year election cycle doesn’t seem to have dissuaded lifetime politicians. Representative John Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, had more than 59 years of service and holds the record for longest consecutive service took office in 1955 until 2015. Longest-serving Speaker of the House: Sam Rayburn of Texas served as Speaker for a total of 17 years, two months, and two days, serving from 1913 to 1961. Don Young the Representative from Alaska served from 1973 till is death in 2022. These terms in office seem excessive and not fitting the citizen legislator that the founders had in mind.

The House currently has 435 members and passes bills with a simple majority and the Speaker is voted in by simple majority and historically represents the party that has 218 or more elected members. The ruling party gets the privilege of majorities in committees and can bring bills to the floor for a vote. Basically, the party in power gets to run the show and if there is a bill, they don’t agree with they don’t ever have to bring it to a vote.

(This lesson is going long so today I am only going to talk about the House of Representatives)

The current fight over the budget and the debt ceiling is a bogus fight in the House and the Republicans are currently holding the country hostage over something that was never in the Constitution. In fact, as I discussed in a previous post, the XIV Amendment that was passed after the Civil war states that the debt of the country cannot been questioned and must be paid. This Republican House majority is trying to negotiate the debt ceiling by cutting future spending rather than repealing tax cuts that run up the debt.

So, the debt ceiling argument wasn’t even a thing. The present debt ceiling is an combined limit applied to nearly all federal debt, which was substantially established by the Public Debt Acts of 1939 and 1941 which have subsequently been amended to change the ceiling amount. As previously stated, not in the Constitution. Subsequently that limit has been routinely lifted the first time the Republicans use this tactic was when President Obama was in the White House, with Trumps tax cuts exploding the debt the debt limit being increased wasn’t even questioned by the Republicans in the house. Now with President Biden the debt ceiling is miraculously a huge concern for the ‘not so’ fiscally responsible Republicans. ‘Anyone else see a pattern?’

Today we exposed the Debt Ceiling as a ruse, tomorrow I will talk about the Senate and the Filibuster.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Have we finally let go of a war that we waged against our own 160 years ago? I know there is still systemic racism, and I am afraid that I won’t see that go away in my lifetime. Sports teams and Stadiums and States are finally relinquishing their flying the Confederate Flag which is very positive although there has been uproar from the southern heritage groups.

The step toward abandoning the idolization of the confederacy this is finally happening is that the U.S. military is finally renaming bases that were named after confederate generals. I was in the Army in the 80s and could never figure out why we had Bases named for people that waged war against the United States.

To be sure not many Americans follow history and probably didn’t realize that some military bases were named after confederates. Here is a list of the Bases and their new names as of this year.

There are/were nine major U.S. military bases named in honor of Confederate military leaders, all in former Confederate States that will be renamed before the end of 2023:

• Fort Benning (1917), near Columbus, Georgia, named for Confederate General Henry L. Benning is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Moore on 11 May 2023 in honor of General Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore
• Fort Bragg (1918), in North Carolina, named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Liberty on 2 June 2023 in honor of Liberty
• Fort Gordon (1917), near Augusta, Georgia, named for Confederate General John Brown Gordon is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Eisenhower in late 2023 in honor of president Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Fort A.P. Hill (1941), near Bowling Green, Virginia, named for Confederate General A. P. Hill is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Walker in late 2023 in honor of Medal of Honor recipient and army surgeon Dr. Mary Edwards Walker
• Fort Hood (1942), in Killeen, Texas, formerly named after Confederate General John Bell Hood, is live-streaming the redesignation ceremony for Fort Cavazos at 9AM on 9 May 2023 in honor of General Richard Cavazos (closed event)
• Fort Lee (1917), in Prince George County, Virginia, named after Confederate General Robert E. Lee was redesignated Fort Gregg-Adams on 27 April 2023 in honor of Lieutenant General Arthur J. Gregg and Lieutenant Colonel Charity Adams
• Fort Pickett (1942), near Blackstone, Virginia, a Virginia National Guard installation named for Confederate General George Pickett was officially redesignated Fort Barfoot on 24 March 2023 in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Van T. Barfoot
• Fort Polk (1941), near Leesville, Louisiana, named for Episcopal bishop and Confederate general Leonidas Polk is scheduled to be redesignated Fort Johnson on 13 June 2023, in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Sergeant William Henry Johnson
• Fort Rucker (1942), in Dale County, Alabama, named for Confederate colonel Edmund Rucker, was officially redesignated Fort Novosel on 10 April 2023 in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Novosel

As someone who served and was stationed on a number of these bases, I have happy that the names are changing even though I will still unfortunately revert to the pre 2023 renaming because its human nature to remember the moniker that has been used for decades.

I am just waiting for the kerfuffle from the South will rise again crowd opposing the name changes but for now I can applaud that was a nation we are finally at least trying to move forward.

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Who would have thought that the incompetence of the Trump Presidency and that blatant hypocrisy of the current House of Representatives would have so many reading the constitution. Hate to admit or relish the fact that I am one of them.

The current Squeaker of the House Kevin McCarthy seems intent on destroying the U.S. and world economy by defaulting on our debt by refusing to raise the Debt Ceiling unless draconian cuts ae made to the current budget that will hurt those most in need of assistance. This current House Majority seems to not understand that the debt limit is only paying for bills already incurred. McCarthy wants to use the child with a credit card comparison while not acknowledging that he and his party are the children. Even if that analogy did fit, they are proposing taking the credit card away but refusing to pay the charges that have already been incurred.

I think it is humorous that the party the claims to be strict constitutionalist haven’t read the document and seemingly don’t realize that there is an amendment that can stop them in their preverbal tracks.

XIV Amendment Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That section, historians say, was added because of fears that if former Confederate states were to regain political power in Congress, lawmakers might repudiate federal debts and guarantee Confederate debt. Reconstructionist Republicans also thought that the clause would discourage loans to future insurrectionists.

The important part of this section, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” This says to me that an arbitrary debt ceiling is unconstitutional based on this amendment.

 In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments. The debt ceiling, in which an aggregate limit is applied to nearly all federal debt, was substantially established by Public Debt Acts passed in 1939 and 1941 and subsequently amended. This limit has been routinely increased without cause except in 2013 and currently.

In 2013 Members of the Republican Party in Congress opposed raising the debt ceiling, which had been routinely raised previously on a bipartisan basis without conditions, without additional spending cuts. They refused to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama would have defunded the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), his signature legislative achievement. The US Treasury began taking extraordinary measures to enable payments, and stated that it would delay payments if funds could not be raised through extraordinary measures, and the debt ceiling was not raised. During the crisis, approval ratings for the Republican Party declined. The crisis ended on October 17, 2013 with the passing of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, although debate continues about the appropriate level of government spending, and the use of the debt ceiling in such negotiations.

This GOP wants:

Cap budget increases

The GOP bill limits increases in the federal budget to 1% per year, significantly slower than the rate of inflation and less than recent year-over-year budget increases, particularly since the pandemic. That isn’t likely to fly with Democrats, as it necessarily means cuts to discretionary spending. 

Impose work requirements for federal aid

The GOP bill imposes stricter work requirements to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding, formerly known as food stamps, for childless adults. The bill also requires each state to collect and submit information to the federal government about the percentage of people enrolled in SNAP who are in unsubsidized employment, as well as the median earning of people who were work-eligible after they exit the program. 

Rescind IRS funding

The Republican plan would also nix $80 million in additional IRS funding, including funding for thousands more agents, that was made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act. Republicans passed a bill to eliminate those additional positions before, but the bill died in the Senate. 

Recoup unspent pandemic relief funds

The Republican legislation recoups unspent federal COVID-19 relief funds approved in the American Rescue Plan and emergency relief packages passed in the final months of the Trump administration. While most of the money has been spent, Republicans — many of whom have long railed against the massive influx of federal spending — believe clawing back the remaining funds can help balance federal coffers. 

“The American people are tired of politicians who use COVID as an excuse for more extreme inflationary spending,” McCarthy said on the House floor Wednesday. “Now, if this money was authorized to fight the pandemic was not spent during the pandemic, it should not be spent after the pandemic is over.”

Unwind Biden’s student loan forgiveness program

Republicans’ bill would nullify Mr. Biden’s program forgiving student loan debt up to $20,000 per borrower. Under the plan, announced by the president last August, eligible borrowers can have up to $10,000 in student debt wiped clean, while qualifying Pell Grant recipients can have an additional $10,000 forgiven. The program has been on hold as legal challenges have made their way through the courts.

Roughly 40 million Americans are eligible for the relief. Mr. Biden extended a pause on federal student loan payments, first put in place by Trump in the early months of the pandemic, through June.

Separate from House Republicans’ effort to unwind the student loan forgiveness program, two challenges to the plan are pending before the Supreme Court. The justices are expected to issue a decision, which could invalidate the program, by the end of June.

Repeal provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law by Mr. Biden last year and is Democrats’ marquee health care, tax and climate bill. The $740 billion package passed with only Democratic support.

Republicans now want to rescind key aspects of the law that were designed to combat climate change, including provisions establishing a high-efficiency electric home rebate program and home energy efficiency contractor training grants.

Implement Republicans’ signature energy bill

Included in the debt limit package is H.R. 1, the “Lower Energy Costs Act.” The legislation aims to boost American energy production and decrease dependency on foreign oil. The plan seeks to quicken the permitting process for energy and infrastructure projects and increase oil and gas production and sales.

It also includes a provision that prohibits the energy secretary from implementing any rules that would “directly or indirectly limit” consumer access to gas kitchen ranges and ovens. 

So, the GOP is holding the country hostage unless President Biden and the Democrats scrap any improvement that they have already made and promise not to help average citizens or reduce the impacts of climate change in the future.

I say pull the XIV Amendment card and tell Mc ‘DumbAss’ and his ilk to pound sand and continue to pay our bills. Then point out to them that of the debt their guy with their help is responsible for 25% of the total bill was created in 4 years.  

Dwain Northey (Gen X)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/king-charles-coronation-live-updates-rcna80824

Today was the day of King Charles III coronation and the world watched as a new chapter in British history begins. Charles surely will not have the reign that his mother Queen Elizabeth II had. Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 at the age of 27 after the passing of her father King George VI and her reign end with her death in September of 2022, she was Queen for nearly 70 years. Charles was 5 years old when his mother became Queen. We can all do math even if Charles lives to the same age as his mother that only gives him 21 years as King. His first-born William is next in line for the throne, he was born in 1982 and if Charles does live to see 96 years of age that will make William a King in his 60’s.

In the current British government monarch, the King, takes little direct part in government. The authority to use the sovereign’s formal powers is almost all delegated, either by statute or by convention, to ministers or officers of the Crown, or other public bodies. At this point in history the Royal family of England really has ceremonial function although they do remain one of the wealthiest families in the world.

Charles is the latest in the line of Tudors going back to King Henry VII. There have been questions in the family line since Henry VII really made his own connection to the crown by circumventing a previous line of succession.

Henry became King of England because he defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field and declared himself king. His claim to the English throne by blood was weak.

Henry was a nephew of the previous Lancastrian king, Henry VI, but they were related not by Henry V’s bloodline, but by Catherine of Valois’ second marriage to Owen Tudor. Catherine of Valois had been Queen consort of England as the wife of Henry V, but after Henry’s death her affair with Owen Tudor, who was probably appointed keeper of Catherine’s household or wardrobe, led to the birth of Henry VII’s father, Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond. There is no evidence that Owen and Catherine were ever married, making Henry VII’s claim to the throne as a legitimate heir even more tenuous.

This is all ancient history but to me it has always been fascinating how a royal line was defined and some ‘noble’ families feel and felt like it was their divine right to rule.

With that note of history let’s recognize the newly crowned King of England Charles III.