Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader Goes thumb Down

For John, BLUF:  Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader wants to thrwart Mr Donld Trump's run for the Presidency, no matter what.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Nader urges judge to imprison Trump, citing grave threat to democracy

Here is the sub-headline:

Ralph Nader calls for a prison sentence for Donald Trump, arguing his actions endanger the peaceful transfer of power.

From Nation of Change, by Reporter Alexis Sterling, 4 July 2024.

Here is the lede plus two:

Ralph Nader, the renowned consumer advocate and attorney, has called on the New York judge presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money trial to sentence the former president to prison. Nader argues that the case for jail time is “open and shut” and asserts that Trump poses a grave threat to the peaceful transfer of presidential power and to democracy itself.

Nader, along with constitutional law expert Bruce Fein, addressed their concerns in a letter to New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan. They urged the judge to exercise his discretion and impose a prison sentence of up to four years based on the circumstances of the felonies and the character of the offender. “Your task is to ensure that the sentence matches the character of the offender, including his clear and present danger to the peaceful transfer of presidential power,” the letter stated.

Nader released the letter on June 28, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing majority ruled that current and former presidents are entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. This decision complicated the hush money case and the separate election-subversion case led by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Candidate Donald Trump is accused of paying hush money to Ms Stormy Daniels and Lawyer Ralph Nader wants him locked away for it?  What about Mr Hunter Niden, who his Baby Moma, Ms Lunden Roberts, claims he offered her hush money in exchange for a Non-Disclosure Agreement?  Should Mr Hunter Biden go to prison?  I am sure the disclosure of this indiscretion would impact votes for his Father.

No, this is about animosity toward Republican Candidate Donald Trump.  This proposal is unworthy of Mr Nader.

And, Candidate Trump would not be the first to run for President from Prison.  In the Comments ChetDude_Redux2 (KootenayCoyote) noted:

The ONLY Constitutional qualifications for a pResident is to be born as a citizen, over 35 years of age with 14 year's continuous residence in the U.S.

A felony conviction (if upheld, which is possibly unlikely) does not disqualify someone from being (s)elected pResident.

The last 3rd party candidate to seriously threaten the power structure, who got the highest percentage of the vote, ran from a prison cell, Eugene Debs, who was put there by Wilson's Espionage Act, the same execrable law that USAmerica used to persecute Julian Assange for 14 years and that Obama used to imprison the most whistleblowers in history.

The decision on th susitability of Mr Donald J Trump to be President of these United States should be left to those with the highest office, the Voters.

Regards  —  Cliff

Happy Independence Day

For John, BLUF:  He may be remembered as Silent Cal, but this is a great discussion of Independence Day.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

From The American Presidency Project, by President Calvin Cooledge, 5 July 1926.

A great speech, but I wish to highlight this paragraph:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

We have not done a perfect job implementing these principles, but we retain them and try our best to hew to them.

May god bless our efforts.

Regards  —  Cliff

State of the Supreme Court—Bernie Sandeers' Version

For John, BLUF:  I don't think Senator Bernie Sanders, and other Democrats, analyze Supreme Court decisions in terms of our freedoms, but tahrough a partisan lense.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘Out of control’:  Sanders calls for urgent Supreme Court reform following controversial rulings

Here is the sub-headline:

Bernie Sanders calls for immediate reforms to the Supreme Court, citing recent rulings that grant presidential immunity and criminalize homelessness as threats to democracy and justice.

From Nation of Change, by Reporter Alexis Sterling, 3 July 2024.

Here is the lede plus two:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has issued a strong call for Supreme Court reform in response to a series of controversial rulings that he argues threaten the foundations of American democracy. Sanders criticized the Court as “out of control,” pointing to its right-wing bias and the influence of corporate interests in shaping its decisions.

Sanders highlighted the 2010 Citizens United decision as a pivotal moment that ushered in a “corrupt, billionaire-dominated political system.” He also pointed to more recent rulings, including the removal of abortion protections, the criminalization of homelessness, the limitation of federal regulatory power, and the granting of unprecedented presidential immunity as evidence of the Court’s extreme agenda.

“These are just some of the dangerous rulings from a right-wing, corporate-sponsored Supreme Court that continues to serve an extremist agenda,” Sanders said. He emphasized that if conservative justices wish to make public policy, they should resign from the Supreme Court and run for political office instead.

I think the Good Senator is a bit over the top in his criticisms.  Abortions are up since Dobbs.  Yes, some Stat4s in the US have changed their rules, but that shows diversity.  As for the homeless (I have been on my City’s Hunger Homeless Commission), it is a question of balance.  Residents and visitors, walking the streets, should not have to step around those sleeping on the streets or the refuse of their lives.  Shelters should be provided, and mental health help provided (but ism’t, because of decisions from Government).  As for Presidential immunity, that is what Impeachment is about.  If Congress won’t do its job, why should the following Administration be allowed to pick up the cuddgle and do the work Congress should have done?.

With regard to Senator Sanderes' concerns for billionaires running the Republican Party and the Conservative Wing of the Supreme Court, he is 60 years out of date.  When I hear billionaire I immediately think of Mr George Soros.  He is the man who has funded numberous District Attorney campaigna, resulting in a slew of communities with weak enforcement of laws  In the long run this is counter-productive, in that the Citizens will eventually realize their safety is in their own hands.  That is not good for a civilized society.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

To Keep Mr Biden on the Ticket

For John, BLUF:  While my view of the situation in DC is different from Mr Cohen's in some respects, I think he does a good job of laying out why the Democrats should stick with Mr Joseph Biden.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ridin' With Biden

Here is the sub-headline:

I look at both sides of the Biden vs. Harris argument and conclude that we're not living in an Aaron Sorkin and Democrats have one choice -- stay the course

From Truth and Consequences, by Opinionator Michael A Cohen (Speech Boy), 1 July 2024.

Here is the lede plus six:

Not Good Bob, Not Good

Over the last few days, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and talking to smart political observers about the dilemma facing the Democratic Party since the Apocalypse in Atlanta (trademark pending). I’ve tried to approach this issue in the most analytical and empirical manner possible. But I want to make one point at the outset.

I have no particular affection for Joe Biden.

He’s a politician and a means to an end. In an era of deep partisan polarization— and as the Republican Party has been taken over by a raving lunatic and has no attachment to basic democratic norms — no Democratic president or politician is sacred. They are all replaceable. The only question is a political one: who is best positioned to keep Trump and the GOP out of the White House?

Don’t get me wrong—Joe Biden has been an excellent president. He pulled the United States out of Afghanistan, handled the wars in Ukraine and Gaza with deftness and effective diplomacy, and his legislative agenda is one of the most impressive since LBJ. I’m not overly concerned about this ability to carry out his duties as president in a second term.

But, if I thought he was likely to lose in November and there was a better option in the wings to take his place, I’d be the first person to push him under the bus. This is not the time for sentimentality.

The problem is I don’t.

I think Michael Cohen makes a good case for retaining Prewident Joe Biden on the Democratic Party Ticket.  You may be a supporter of Candidate Trump, but it is good to undertand the terrain from other points of view.  This is such a chance..

And, you can subacribe to this substack at no cost for the basic output.  For the duration of the Election.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Stop Asking For Uncle Sam to Pay Your Bills

For John, BLUF:  We can't have it all and trying to do it will bankrupt the nation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pols want data on migrant sponsors

Here is the sub-headline:

Letter demands Gov. Healey conduct review, require reimbursement

From The Lowell Sun, by Boston Herald Reporter Gayla Cawley, 3 July 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

A group of Massachusetts senators are demanding that the governor review how many migrant families being supported by taxpayers entered the U.S. on the condition of having their expenses covered by a sponsor, and that she make those people pay up.

Eleven state senators, led by Democrat Michael Moore and Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, sent a letter to Gov. Maura Healey and Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Edward Augustus, calling for accountability for those who have made commitments to provide financial support for migrants under the federal Humanitarian Parole Program, “but have not fulfilled that commitment.”

All good stuff, but I want to focus on a paragraph further down in the story;:

“We appreciate the pressure you have placed on the federal government, and we continue to hope that Congress will act,” the June 25 letter states. “However, we ask that you also seek to hold to account those who have legally committed themselves to provide financial support for these migrants.”

While I am relatively confident immigrants are not clamoring to go to Alasks or North Dakota.♠  That said, immigrants do tend to be spread out across the fruited plain, if not by choioce, then by the acts of certain State Governors.

This, in turn, means that there are not large pockets of US tgaxpayers who can pony up the money for Massachusetts or New York City or Chicago to house immigrants.  The only way the Federal Government can hep the individual states to pay for the care and feeding of our millions of illegal immigrants is to print money.  We are financing it with debt.

As Senator Evertt Dirkson (R-IL) is reported to have said:  "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money."

This is not a good situation.  It is only aqdding to the inflaqtion problem we are alredy facing.  The TV Network CNBC said, in March o fthis year, "The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days".  In February of this year Forbes reported that the Congressional Budget Office now says tht the interest on the US Federeal debt now exceeds the Defense Budget.

This growing debt will eat our budget.  Not just Defense, but also things like Social Security and Medicare.  It will damage, and then destory the US Dollar as the world reservre currency.  As US News and World Report told us in February of this year, "For the U.S., it would likely mean less access to capital, higher borrowing costs and lower stock market values."  That i bad news for ll families as they try to live from paycheck to paycheck.  It also means, in th eend, less support for those who need Government support.

We need to wake up and realize that we can not do everything.  We need to prioritize and look for cheaper solutions.  We need to stsrt paying down our natoinal debt before it eats the budget.

And, perhpas we should turn off the flow of illegal immigrants, who are costing us a lot of money, and interest payments.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  An old Air Force expression about Montana is "Why not Minot?  Freezin' is the reason."

Fire the DNC

For John, BLUF:  The author sees the current problems of the Democratic Party as a collective problem of the Democratic Natinoal Committee, reflecting on the broad leadership of the party, which seems to have adopted "go along to get along".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Memo to the DNC:  You share the blame for Biden’s bait-and-switch

Here is the sub-headline:

The loyalty of millions of voters is being sorely tested by the failure of the Democratic National Committee to hold the president to his implicit campaign pledge to serve one term

From The Boston Globe, by Columnist Larry Edelman, 1 July 2024.

Here is the lede plus four:

If the Democratic Party were a publicly traded company, the mishandling of the presidential nomination process by its board of directors — the Democratic National Committee — would likely have sparked a revolt by investors. Here’s how an activist investor might respond.

To: Jaime Harrison, chair, Democratic National Committee
Re: Thanks for nothing

A lifelong Democrat, I’ve voted for each and every one of our party’s presidential nominees since 1980 — sometimes enthusiastically, other times not. I think I’ve pulled the lever for exactly one Republican in an election at any level: Bill Weld, for governor of Massachusetts. And he might as well have been one of us. (Even the Globe endorsed him in 1990.)

But my loyalty — and the loyalty of millions of Democrats like me — is being sorely tested by the failure of you and the rest of the DNC leadership to hold President Biden to his implicit campaign pledge to serve one term.

This is a view, and one worth considering.

I am a Registered Republican, but even I see the present problems within the Democrstic Party as not being good for our Democracy.  We do not need for the Democratic Party to implode, and then perhaps fragment,  While I don't expect the Democratic Party to emerge as the Party of my youth, I do hope it emerges as a party capable of winning elections, not as the representative of some angry minority that fails to reflect the values of the average American.

Regards  —  Cliff