Meanwhile, Outside

It's been a while, hasn't it.

 While it's still available, here's some science from NOAA:

The December global surface temperature was 1.26°C (2.27°F) above the 20th-century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F), making it the second-warmest December on record. This was 0.13°C (0.23°F) below last year's record warm month. December 2024 marked the 49th consecutive December (since 1975) with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th-century average.

It's still getting warmer out there.

But still, there's this from The Guardian: 

Donald Trump’s administration has started to remove or downgrade mentions of the climate crisis across the US government, with the websites of several major departments pulling down references to anything related to the climate crisis. Climate scientists said they were braced “for the worst”.

A major climate portal on the Department of Defense’s website has been scrapped, as has the main climate change section on the site of the Department of State. A climate change page on the White House’s website no longer exists, nor does climate content provided by the US agriculture department, including information that provides vulnerability assessments for wildfires.

Straight down the Memory Hole.  

To show what the current administration is doing take a look (so to speak) at that DOD portal.

This is what it looked like just before Trump's inauguration:

And this is what it looks like now:

Yep. Down the memory hole.

Day 18 of the Second Trump Administration.

 

 

2 + 2 = 5

I will not give in to the lies.

I will not give in to the fear.

2 + 2 = 5

Day Ten.

From The Guardian:

The Trump White House’s 27-year-old press secretary staunchly defended an abrupt freeze on federal grants and proclaimed a new era of aggressive immigration enforcement on Tuesday, marking a confrontational return to Trump-era media relations in the administration’s first official briefing.

Karoline Leavitt, the youngest White House press secretary in history, insisted the controversial funding pause set to activate on Tuesday evening would not affect individual benefits like social security and Medicare, but would target what she called “illegal DEI programs” and the “green new scam” initiatives that she claimed waste taxpayer money.

“The American people gave President Trump an overwhelming mandate on November 5, and he’s trying to ensure that the tax money going out the door in this very bankrupt city actually aligns with the will and priorities of the American people,” Leavitt said.

Let's pause right there. 

According to the FEC, Trump received 49.8% of the votes cast - not even a majority. It was only about 2.3 million more votes more than were cast for VP Harris.

This is not an "overwhelming mandate" in any definition of that phrase.

In other words, this is a lie.

Here's another:

She also defended Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, despite legal challenges from 22 state attorneys general. “This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional,” Leavitt said, vowing to take the fight to the supreme court.

And here's what's in The Constitution: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

 2 + 2 = 5

A Judge Responds

Let's start with Trump's assault on the 14th Amendment. 

It contains these paragraphs:

The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

To understand Trump's error here, let's head over to Hah-vahd, to some actual legal experts:

[Harvard Law Today]: The relevant portion of Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The new administration argues that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to children of those who are undocumented or who are on temporary visas. What do you make of that claim?

[Gerald L. Neuman, J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law]: The argument is either a crazy theory or dishonest interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court explained what those words mean in the Wong Kim Ark case. It reflects the fact that there are these traditional exceptions that really do involve people who are not subject to the nation’s jurisdiction. The leading example in the 1860s debates was foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity, who are for the most part not subject to our laws, and who retain the citizenship of the country that sent them and which they are serving. Their children share the immunity and would not qualify. There is also the example of a foreign warship visiting a port of the United States — the country does not exercise jurisdiction over foreign warships, and therefore children born on the foreign warships are not citizens of the United States.

With respect to undocumented workers, they are people who come to the United States to work, to participate in our economy, to live in our society, to live safely in our territory. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Further, the thing that makes the immigration laws so enforceable against them is that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Note that last sentence.

Anyway, Trump's executive order was temporarily blocked quickly after it was pinched out of Trump's Oval Office.

From The NYTimes:

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, dealing the president his first setback as he attempts to upend the nation’s immigration laws and reverse decades of precedent.

In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided with Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon, the four states that sued, signing a restraining order that blocks Mr. Trump’s executive order for 14 days, renewable upon expiration. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” he said.

“Frankly,” he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.”

Mr. Trump responded hours later, telling reporters at the White House, “Obviously we’ll appeal it.”

Of course he will. Not that this part of the judge's order means anything to the MAGA-cult:

There is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Immigration and Nationality Act. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169  U.S.  649, 694-99 (1898); Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222, 223 (N.D. Cal. 1942), aff'd, 134 F.2d 413 (9thCir. 1943), cert denied, 319 U.S. 753 (1943)  see also Gee v. United States, 49 F. 146, 148 (9th Cir. 1892). 

But when has Trump ever let the law get in the way of his plans?

 

 

 

 

Trump Pardons

Day Two

From The Hill:

President-elect Trump told NBC it was disgraceful President Biden issued pardons to Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), and other members of the House panel that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

“It is disgraceful. Many are guilty of MAJOR CRIMES! DJT” Trump texted NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker.

Two folks at HuffPost didn't like the Biden's Pardons, either: 

While these pardons may well save these people from months, if not years, of costly litigation for committing no crimes, they were a terrible idea. They create the appearance of corruption, even where none exists. To those marinating in the Trumpian conspiracy swamps, and even for those who do not closely follow politics, they look like a cover-up. Why pardon someone if they didn’t do something wrong? In feeding the conspiracy, they affirm Trump’s argument that politics is just an elite protection racket, so why shouldn’t he get to do the same?

That argument leaves out one little point. From NPR December, 2020:

President Trump issued dozens more pardons on Wednesday evening to many wealthy and well-connected convicts with ties to his innermost circles, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Republican operative Roger Stone and Charles Kushner, the father-in-law of Ivanka Trump.

And:

The case against Stone was brought by then-special counsel Robert Mueller as part of his probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible ties between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Stone was indicted on charges of lying to Congress about what he and then-candidate Trump knew about Russian efforts to discredit Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign, witness tampering and obstruction. The charges related to his efforts during the 2016 presidential race to act as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks.

But days before Stone, who is Trump's longtime friend and political confidant, was to report to prison in July, the president commuted the 40-month prison sentence.

Trump's already done it.

To their credit, I suppose, the HuffPost duo did acknowledge:

These [pardons] appear to be purely prophylactic pardons meant to protect these individuals from the threat of investigations launched by President Donald Trump, who had promised vengeance through investigation and prosecution against all of the pardoned individuals.

He was going to go after Fauci, et al, anyway. 

In any event, here's some Day One news from the NYTimes:

President Donald J. Trump, in one of his first official acts, issued a sweeping grant of clemency on Monday to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, issuing pardons to most of the defendants and commuting the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Mr. Trump’s moves amounted to an extraordinary reversal for rioters accused of both low-level, nonviolent offenses and for those who had assaulted police officers.

And they effectively erased years of efforts by federal investigators to seek accountability for the mob assault on the peaceful transfer of presidential power after Mr. Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. As part of his pardon order, Mr. Trump also directed the Justice Department to dismiss “all pending indictments” that remained against people facing charges for Jan. 6.

He pardoned them or commuted the sentences of people who committed some MAJOR CRIMES, didn't he? 

For example:

The pardons will also wipe the slate clean for violent offenders who went after the police on Jan. 6 with baseball bats, two-by-fours and bear spray and are serving prison terms, in some cases of more than a decade.

Moreover, Mr. Trump pardoned Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, who was serving a 22-year prison term after being convicted at trial of seditious conspiracy — a crime that requires prosecutors to prove that a defendant used violent force against the government.

Sure, but Biden's pardons absolutely reek of political corruption. 

The riot of January 6, 2020 was an act of love simply because The Leader said so.

 

 

Biden Pardons

 Good for him.

From The Biden White House:

I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my authority under the Constitution to pardon General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee. The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.

Good for him.

Resist.

Day one.

George Orwell famously wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

Elsewhere, he wrote:

And yet the peculiar horror of the present moment is that we cannot be sure that this is so. It is quite possible that we are descending into an age in which two and two will make five when the Leader says so.

In this case, "the Leader" is being inaugurated President of the United States later today.

He's a criminal, found guilty on 34 felony charges in the state of New York. He was also found liable to have committed real estate fraud and sexual assault. He owes hundreds of millions in fines for the fraud and for defaming the woman he assaulted.

These are facts. His MAGA cult will tell you they're lies - and that is just because their leader says so.

Protect your self. Protect your sensitive communications. Especially if you are in any of the communities soon to be targeted by The Leader's second administration.

Get a Proton Mail account.

From PCMag:

You can use Proton Mail at no charge, while paying for an account removes some limits and enables advanced features. Proton Mail stores your data using zero-knowledge encryption, meaning only you can access it. A disgruntled employee can’t rummage through your Proton Mail messages, and the best subpoena in the world can’t force the company to turn over your account.

So if two people are communicating via Proton Mail, it's end-to-end encrypted. You can send encrypted email (password protected) out of Proton Mail as well.

You can store documents there as well - just go to Proton Drive.

Proton also has a VPN.

What's a VPN?

Again, PCMag:

A private network configured within a public network such as the Internet or a carrier's network. A VPN provides anonymity and privacy for every desktop and mobile device that accesses the Internet. VPNs use so-called "tunneling" protocols because they tunnel a private channel through a public network.

Get a Tor Browser.

From PCMag:

The easiest way is with Tor Browser. Tor, which stands for The Onion Router, is more than just one of the best web browsers. It's a technology stack that hides your web activity by routing and obscuring it through multiple nodes, like the layers of an onion. Its use for nefarious activities is well chronicled, but it's your best option if you want real privacy online. Tor Browser is a free, open-source project that simplifies protecting your identity online.

All of the above are available in free versions, though you can upgrade the Proton stuff.

I have no financial interest in any of it. I'm using the free versions.

This is Good-Bye - For Now

I've been at this for a little more than 20 years and it's a wonderful journey. 

I tried my best to fact check and offer commentary (with an attitude, as one friend told me early on) in order to clear the political haze that constantly surrounds us.

And yet, here we are.

It's just too overwhelming right now. I need some time off and I have no idea how much.

Until I come back, I won't be blogging any more.

Best of luck to you all.

David

PS: The blog will remain on line.