Lessons of History and Trying To Avoid the Same Mistakes

[sartre play]

P R O J E C T I O N

No the depression. You see how much we scream here over the cost of gas!
they were starving,
Hitler told them what they wanted to hear.
Germans are the best, we will win, its other peoples fault. follow me.

 

[Dragonlady]

https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16

With all the arguments over whether MAGA Republicans are fascists, I reread William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to see how much the rise of Hitler and the rise of MAGA smell similar. Conclusion: They do. This thread lists 10 ways. Please take a look.

1. A big lie about treachery is used to foment resentment. Nazis: We didn’t really lose World War I. It was a “stab in the back” by Jews and other "November criminals." MAGA: We didn’t really lose the 2020 election. It was a “steal” by politicians and Blacks in big cities.




2. There’s an obsession with purity of the culture. Nazis: “Racial mixture” was a threat to Aryan culture, Hitler wrote. MAGA: “Great replacement theory” says immigrants threaten white culture.



3. Chaos is something to be exploited, not addressed. Nazis: Economic distress is a great political opportunity. MAGA: Economic distress is a great political opportunity.



4. The super-rich bankroll the right-wing seizure of power. Nazis: Thanks to I.G. Farben, Deutsche Bank, Thyssen, Krupp, etc. MAGA: Thanks to the Mercers, Uihleins, DeVos, Thiel, etc.



5. Some people think the fascist threat is overblown. Nazis: While Hitler posed a major threat, some said he "ceased to be a political danger.” (2 weeks later, he was chancellor.) MAGA: While Trump poses a major threat, many people think it’s “just politics,” no worries.


6. There’s a cult of personality. Nazis: The German army made a pledge of loyalty to Hitler personally. MAGA: Trump’s supporters bill him as “the most moral president” in U.S. history.



7. Christianity is used to legitimize the movement. Nazis: “The party stands for positive Christianity.” MAGA: Trump is described as the “Chosen One” protecting American Christianity.





8. Books are the enemy. Nazis: Any book that “acts subversively on our future” must be burned. MAGA: “I think we should throw those books in a fire,” says a Virginia school board member.




9. An independent news media is the enemy. Nazis: Any newspaper that “offends the honor and dignity of Germany” must be banned. MAGA: The press is the “enemy of the people.”



10. Educators are pressured to be politically compliant. Nazis: Teachers took an oath to “be loyal and obedient to Adolf Hitler.” MAGA: Florida’s DeSantis accuses teachers of “indoctrination” and pressures them to avoid references to America’s racist history and LGBTQ people.



I'm not saying that MAGA will end up as horrifically as Nazism. I am saying that America 2022 feels too much like Germany 1932, and I don't want to take the risk of watching MAGA cultism play out. We have to stop it now.



Why did Twitter put a “sensitive” warning on this thread? Who knows? My only theory is that it has a “hateful symbol”—a swastika on the cover of Shirer’s book about Nazism.

To which I would add that every time I hear "American Exceptionism", I hear the echo of "Aryan Supremacy" in my ear.

 

[Sixties Fan]

In December of 1966, the United States Court unanimously decided a case called Bond v. Floyd. Julian Bond was a Black man, elected to the Georgia legislature.

​

Several months after the election in June 1965 a civil rights organization that Mr. Bond belonged to issued an anti-war statement about Vietnam, which he subsequently endorsed in statements to the press. White members of the Georgia House challenged Bond's right to be seated, charging that his statements aided our enemies, violated the Selective Service laws, discredited the House, and were inconsistent with the legislator's mandatory oath to support the Constitution.

Bond filed a challenge in the House the the petitions against seating him, alleging they were violations of his First Amendment rights and they were racially motivated. The House committee hearing his challenged concluded that Bond should not be seated, and he filed a lawsuit and a three-judge panel in the federal district court in Georgia ruled against him 2-1. Bond filed an appeal under a provision the permitted him to go straight to the United States Supreme Court and while the appeal was pending, he was re-elected to the Georgia House in a special election and again, the House refused to seat him. He was elected again in the regular election in 1966, and the Supreme Court decided his case shortly afterwards.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Bond’s favor relied upon a famous First Amendment case, New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that although a State may impose a requirement that legislators take an oath of allegiance, it cannot limit their capacity to express views on local or national policy." “[D]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," the Court wrote, citing the decision in Sullivan.

The Court’s opinion in Bond concluded with these words: “Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them. We therefore hold that the disqualification of Bond from membership in the Georgia House because of his statements violated Bond's right of free expression under the First Amendment.”

The Bond case was about whether a newly-elected member should be seated, so it’s not precisely the same situation as what we are seeing in Tennessee today. But the principle is the same, members of the Tennessee legislature do not lose their First Amendment rights by virtue of their election, and especially not when they are seeking to represent the constituents who elected them. A challenge to those members First Amendment Rights cannot be dressed up as a violation of decorum rules, it’s still a violation of First Amendment rights. And when two Black representatives are expelled while a white narrowly avoids expulsion, no amount of dissembling can erase the obvious conclusion.

​

Tennessee Republicans expelled two Black members of the Tennessee House, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson. The tried, but failed to expel Gloria Johnson.
The Supreme Court in Bond held, “while the State has an interest in requiring its legislators to swear to a belief in constitutional processes of government, surely the oath gives it no interest in limiting its legislators' capacity to discuss their views of local or national policy. The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.”

Tennessee State Rep. Justin Pearson, who was expelled from the legislature today because he supported his constituents who were concerned about gun violence said, “You cannot ignore the racial dynamic of what happened today. Two young Black lawmakers get expelled and the one white woman does not?” And of course, he’s right.

What happened in Tennessee on Thursday was outrageous and stupid and petty, and then, the legislature went on to advertise their racism. It was also illegal. It shouldn’t take long for the next stage of this to play out in the courts. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that it happened in the first place.

Tennessee

In December 1966, the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided a case called Bond v. Floyd. Julian Bond was a Black man elected to the Georgia legislature. Several months after his election in June 1965, a civil rights organization that Mr. Bond belonged to issued an anti-war statement...

joycevance.substack.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Iowa was one of only four states to turn down $3 million in federal money for planning to prevent climate change after a state official advised against it because there were “strings attached.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offered each state $3 million from the Inflation Reduction Act to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create green energy jobs, lower energy costs for families and reduce air pollution, among other objectives.

Governors had until last Friday to file notice they planned to apply for the grants. Iowa, Florida, Kentucky and South Dakota were the only states that declined to participate, the EPA confirmed Wednesday.


----

Iowa is among about half the states without goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, despite ranking No. 2 in the nation for emissions from crop production. Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, cause global warming by trapping the sun’s heat in the atmosphere.

Since 1990, the energy and industrial sectors have slashed their combined greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 35 percent, according to an analysis by The Gazette and Investigate Midwest of the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer. But the agriculture and transportation sectors each went up more than 6 percent between 1990 and 2020.

State Rep. Chuck Isenhart, D-Dubuque, sent a letter to Reynolds last week asking her to seek the federal climate change planning aid.

“The plans will provide participating entities the basis to apply for $4.6 billion in federal implementation grants authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” Isenhart wrote. “Plans can also be used to leverage other funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act of 2022.”

Pipeline connection?​

Isenhart said Wednesday he doesn’t know why the state turned down the planning money.

“There is that allegation out there Republicans don’t believe climate pollution is a problem,” he told The Gazette. “If we don’t think it’s a problem worthy of applying for a grant to address it, why would we approve carbon dioxide pipelines that are a headache to Iowans?”

Isenhart was speaking about the Iowa Utilities Board considering whether to grant permits for companies seeking to capture CO2 from ethanol plants and transport the gas in underground pipelines to sequestration sites in Illinois and North Dakota.

Pipeline project leaders are hoping to get federal tax credits made available because of the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gases to head off the worst effects of climate change, including sea level rise and more extreme weather.

Because Iowa declined the federal money, the state’s three largest cities — Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport — now can seek $1 million each to develop their own plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They would need to file a notice of intent to apply by April 28.


(full article online )

Iowa turns down $3M federal grant for climate change planning

Iowa was one of only four states to turn down $3 million in federal money for planning to prevent climate change after a state official advised against it because there were “strings attached.”

www.thegazette.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Lastamender]

Iowa was one of only four states to turn down $3 million in federal money for planning to prevent climate change after a state official advised against it because there were “strings attached.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offered each state $3 million from the Inflation Reduction Act to come up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create green energy jobs, lower energy costs for families and reduce air pollution, among other objectives.

Governors had until last Friday to file notice they planned to apply for the grants. Iowa, Florida, Kentucky and South Dakota were the only states that declined to participate, the EPA confirmed Wednesday.


----

Iowa is among about half the states without goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, despite ranking No. 2 in the nation for emissions from crop production. Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, cause global warming by trapping the sun’s heat in the atmosphere.

Since 1990, the energy and industrial sectors have slashed their combined greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 35 percent, according to an analysis by The Gazette and Investigate Midwest of the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Explorer. But the agriculture and transportation sectors each went up more than 6 percent between 1990 and 2020.

State Rep. Chuck Isenhart, D-Dubuque, sent a letter to Reynolds last week asking her to seek the federal climate change planning aid.

“The plans will provide participating entities the basis to apply for $4.6 billion in federal implementation grants authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” Isenhart wrote. “Plans can also be used to leverage other funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act of 2022.”

Pipeline connection?​

Isenhart said Wednesday he doesn’t know why the state turned down the planning money.

“There is that allegation out there Republicans don’t believe climate pollution is a problem,” he told The Gazette. “If we don’t think it’s a problem worthy of applying for a grant to address it, why would we approve carbon dioxide pipelines that are a headache to Iowans?”

Isenhart was speaking about the Iowa Utilities Board considering whether to grant permits for companies seeking to capture CO2 from ethanol plants and transport the gas in underground pipelines to sequestration sites in Illinois and North Dakota.

Pipeline project leaders are hoping to get federal tax credits made available because of the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gases to head off the worst effects of climate change, including sea level rise and more extreme weather.

Because Iowa declined the federal money, the state’s three largest cities — Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport — now can seek $1 million each to develop their own plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They would need to file a notice of intent to apply by April 28.


(full article online )

Iowa turns down $3M federal grant for climate change planning

Iowa was one of only four states to turn down $3 million in federal money for planning to prevent climate change after a state official advised against it because there were “strings attached.”

www.thegazette.com

How much longer are you planning on talking to yourself?

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

On Friday, March 31, Anton “Tony” Lazzaro was found guilty by a federal jury of “orchestrating a sex trafficking conspiracy in which he trafficked multiple minor girls.”Assistant United States Attorneys Melinda Williams, Laura Provinzino, and Emily Polachek released a statement on the verdict, saying, “today’s guilty verdict recognizes the bravery of the five young victims who were trafficked by Lazzaro. We are humbled by their courage and inspired by their journeys to regain their power.”

The government only needed a 10-day trial to make the case against the now-32-year-old Lazzaro, using his much younger associate Gisela Castro Medina as their star witness. Lazzaro’s defense—that he wasn’t preying on “broken” girls, but instead was trying to “fix” them—doesn’t seem to have been effective. The former big-time Minnesota Republican strategist was arrested in 2021 following an investigation and raid that turned up a mountain of evidence showing that, with help from then-19-year-old Castro Medina, Lazzaro had plied young girls with gifts and money in exchange for sex.

Lazzaro was connected to many elected Republicans in Minnesota, including then-Minnesota state Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Carnahan. Carnahan, who was already facing pressure for a terrible workplace culture, resigned shortly after Lazzaro’s arrest.


(full article online)

Actual groomer: Republican donor convicted of sex trafficking teenagers

On Friday, March 31, Anton “Tony” Lazzaro was found guilty by a federal jury of “orchestrating a sex trafficking conspiracy in which he trafficked multiple minor girls.” Assistant United States Attorneys Melinda Williams, Laura Provinzino, and Emily...

www.dailykos.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

A majority on Nashville’s Metropolitan Council has pledged to reinstate Democrats Justin Jones and Justin Pearson to the Tennessee Legislature after Republicans expelled them for participating in gun violence protests at the state capitol. The council is scheduled to hold a special hearing on Monday which will include a vote to reinstate the two elected officials, setting up a stunning rebuke of the shameful and utterly fascist maneuver. And guess what? Tennessee's constitution says no representative can be expelled twice for the same offense...so Reps. Jones and Pearson, the floor is yours!

Majority of Nashville council members say they will vote to reinstate expelled legislator

At least 23 members of the Metropolitan Council vowed to send Justin Jones back to his seat in the Tennessee Legislature after he was expelled following protests over gun violence.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

They knew. They realized exactly what signal they were sending.

And that signal was picked up, too: MSNBC’s Alex Wagner mentioned during the handoff between Chris Hayes’ show and hers that other Republicans in other states had pointed to Tennessee as a leader in how these things get done; and that in fact the Republican supermajority in Wisconsin was already openly discussing how they might impeach the newly elected Supreme Court justice, before she has even taken up her role, before she has made any official decisions.

Tennessee, to these Republicans, is a beacon. It’s a template.

Just as we saw with abortion rights rolled back across the country in states with Republican-held legislatures and governors, just as we saw with book bans, just as we saw with anti-trans legislation and other forms of suppressing or criminalizing the identity expression of young people, this will seem isolated at first, but will spread and pop up like a cottage industry. It will be “put in play,” as they say.

What conservatives are communicating to their base is this: “We have the power. We can remove these people without any consequences whatsoever. We don’t have to work with them; we can just get rid of them. This is how we take our country back. We stop pretending.”

This has been a terrible two weeks, but it’s important to reexamine the landscape. We have a former president under criminal indictment. GOP House Representatives, led by the MAGA caucus, disrespected the separation of powers by interfering in the criminal proceedings, demanding that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg come before them and divulge his evidence and materials before even the advent of the trial, before they even know the charges leveled against Trump (who, unfathomably, remains their standard-bearer). Trump, for his part, has called Bragg an “animal” whose “master” is an international Jewish bankerwhose very name has become a slur.

These are not undertones, and they are not disconnected.

In Tennessee, nine-year-olds were slaughtered in an apparent sacrifice to the deities of the AR-15, and yet lawmakers proudly donned lapel pins, replicas of the weapon. They observed no mourning. Tucker Carlson and his cronies twisted the story immediately, scapegoating the trans community and saying that this was no time to give up your guns. No time for remembrance of the victims: clutch the gun, and seethe with the same resentment as though the weapon had been taken away.

The spectacle was obscene. But for this campaign to work, gun owners can never feel sympathy for the victims of gun violence. It must always be a binary choice.

But beyond that, this is a playbook that has been consulted many times in the last few years. We saw it with the confirmation hearings of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She was a diversity hire, it was said. We saw it with Brittney Griner, who was seen as jumping the line of politically held prisoners, as though there were some quota system to be fulfilled in spiriting her home. We see it with the grouping of the local DAs who have amassed evidence against Donald Trump, where he has essentially called them subhuman and claimed that he is being targeted because he is WHITE.


(full article online)

They mean to roll back more than we ever suspected

Along with many of the rest of you, I watched with horror as Tennessee lawmakers took the unprecedented step of expelling two of its members from its House chamber, and all, ostensibly, for the ...

www.dailykos.com