Elizabeth Potter Graham abortion letter

To as many Alabamians as it is possible to tweet to:

It is urged that you read Elizabeth Potter Graham's letter on the abortion issue, which letter is linked in her below tweet.

Open letter to Alabama Legislature in opposition to abortion criminalization bill. #alpolitics #abortion
Please read and send to your legislator by email or Tweet.
https://t.co/yuIMGAgZU9

— Elizabeth Potter Graham JD (@Ms_Liz2) April 9, 2019

(To read letter, click either on the link to the letter in the above tweet, or click on https://medium.com/@elizabethpottergraham/letter-to-the-alabama-legislature-5b5a3fd869d6)

The letter is an amazing letter and should be read by every Alabamian who has an interest in the abortion issue.

If you think Elizabeth Potter Graham's letter should be the subject of organized direct tweeting to Alabamians, please contact her and let her know that. (Organized direct tweeting to voters is explained at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/02/organized-direct-tweeting-campaign-tool.html and its links.)

Rebuttal to Rep. Brooks' bombast

A. Rep. Brooks' bombast

Yesterday, Rep. Brooks issued issued this press release:
BROOKS APPLAUDS SPEAKER PELOSI ADMISSION OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP!

The press release contains the below bombast:

". . . Socialist Democrats and their national news media allies have searched far and wide for evidence of a President Trump impeachable offense . . .[and] have monumentally failed to discover and produce credible evidence that the Trump campaign either colluded with Russia in the 2016 election or that President Trump committed the impeachable high crime or misdemeanor offense required by the U.S. Constitution.[and] are a collective scam and fraud perpetrated on the American people to not only delegitimize the duly elected President of the United States but also for the crass purpose of accumulating political power.”
" . . .Socialist Democrats and their radical news media allies [should] cleanse their souls and atone for their sins by apologizing to the American people for the fraud and scam they committed, [that] has undermined our republic [and] been divisive to the point some Americans have been driven to violence out of hatred for President Trump." 
 “The American people need to see past the Socialist Democrat fraud and scam. . .[and] country will be better off if the American people reject the vile behavior of Socialist Democrats and move past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”

[Update 4/1/19: Last week, after the Barr letter, Rep. Brooks issued a further press release
BROOKS ON ONE AMERICA NEWS: RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION "BIG LIE" TACTIC BOOSTS GOP 2020 ELECTION CHANCES]

B. Rebuttal of Brooks' bombast

1. Brooks is too narrowly focused - Trump's conflicts of interest problem

For two years the country has been obsessed with whether or not Trump colluded with Russia.

There is a bigger picture about Trump that is shaping up to engulf him.

One part of the picture is Trump's conflicts of interest problem. 

Rep. Brooks, as a lawyer, a former governmental prosecutor and a public official, is playing dumb about this, or, if he is not playing dumb, he is actually dumb.

Trump was an unprecedented Presidential candidate with his 40 year history as an international businessman and with no experience in public office before he became President. 

This was coupled with Trump's choice to keep his business conflicts of interest after he became President and to profit from the Presidency. Other Presidents either did not have business conflicts of interest or took steps to eliminate the conflicts. Trump was unprecedented as President with his massive business conflicts of interest and his choice to keep those conflicts and profit from the Presidency.

Rep. Brooks, as a lawyer, a former governmental prosecutor and a public official, knows well (or should know well) the problems of public officials having conflicts of interest. 

I discuss those problems, and how they are particularly mounting for Trump, at Trump's conflicts of interest problem. 

Rep. Brooks' bombastic press release refers to "mov[ing] past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”

If Rep. Brooks wants that to happen or thinks that will happen, Rep. Brooks needs to respond to what I lay out in Trump's conflicts of interest problem.

One possible response that Rep. Brooks may make is that Trump may have whatever conflicts of interest he wishes, Trump may profit from Presidency as he chooses, and, in making decisions and taking actions as President, it is permissible for Trump to favor his private business interests over the interests of the United States.

If Rep. Brooks is of the foregoing mind, he should so say expressly and put his view out for consideration and debate by the voters.

If Rep. Brooks does not hold the foregoing view, then Rep. Brooks needs to express what Congressional oversight there needs to be by reason of Trump's massive conflicts of interest and Trump's unprecedented choice to keep those conflicts of interest, profit from the Presidency and make decisions and take actions as President which may favor his private business interests over the interests of the United States.

Until the foregoing is addressed by Rep. Brooks and other GOP in Congress, there will be no "mov[ing] past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history.”


2. Brooks is too narrowly focused - Trump's past criminality and wrongdoing

As a Presidential candidate, Trump pitched to the voters that his 40 years of business experience gave him a special qualification for running the United States as President, which career politicians did not have.

Many voters voted for Trump for that reason.

With Trump having 40 years of experience in international business, there was a risk that Trump did not do everything on the up and up.

After two years of the Trump presidency, the country is now being confronted with what to do about Trump if criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light, as is happening now.

Does the country give Trump a pass no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light?

This is coming to a matter of national debate. For more discussion, see Reckoning with Trump's past.

Rep. Brooks, in  his wish for the country to "move past this harmful and regrettable moment in our history," is too narrowly focused on the Russia investigation, and Rep. Brooks needs to expressly discuss his position about whether the country should give Trump a pass no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light.

One possible position for Rep.Brooks to take is that, no matter how much criminality and wrongdoing from Trump's past comes to light, the only way the country should hold Trump accountable is by voting him out of office in 2020. If that is Rep. Brooks' position, he should so say, and let there be debate about that.

[to be continued]
[continued 4/1/19]


3. Investigate the investigators: The Deep State

Trump has instigated GOP calls for an investigation of the investigators to find out out why the investigation of him and his campaign of possibly colluding with Russia was commenced in 2016. Suggestions have been made that the investigation of Trump and his campaign were part of an illegal and treasonous plot of Deep State actors to undo the results of the 2016 election.

These are extremely serious charges, and the Democrats are pushing back hard.

The charges, and the push back, threaten to sink the United States deeper into chaos.

Rep. Brooks is a leader in the charge on the Trump side.

In being a leader in the charge, Rep. Brooks is escalating his bombast.

Most likely, Rep. Brooks will only do bombast and has no use for thoughtful, rational discussion in Alabama.

Be that as it may, thoughtful, rational discussion in Alabama has been attempted in this blog entry, and will be continued.

In that vein, thoughtful rational discussion of The Deep State is called for.

When he left office in 1961, Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex.

Jumping ahead to 2015, Mike Lofgren published in 2015 a book entitled
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
In the introduction, Lofgren says:

Our venerable institutions of government have outwardly remained the same, but they have grown more and more resistant to the popular will as they have become hardwired into a corporate and private influence network with almost unlimited cash to enforce its will .. . .

I use the term [Deep State] to mean a hybrid association of key elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States with only limited reference to the consent of the governed as normally expressed through elections.
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure that has given us the most unequal society in almost a century, and the political dysfunction that has paralyzed day-to-day governance.

Reflection on, coherent articulation of, and discussion of the Deep State for the benefit of the American people, are not something Trump has done or will do.

With such a leadership deficit on the part of Trump, it would help if each of our #algop in Congress laid out what they understand about the Deep State as the "big story of our time," including when they became aware of the Deep State, whether they consider themselves willing participants in the Deep State, what they say to their donors about the Deep State, who in Congress they identify as participants in the Deep State, and what actions they are taking to counter the Deep State.


[to be continued]

Socialism issue

The current political campaigning about "socialism" is unhelpful to the voters in deciding what they desire for the United States and which candidates to vote for.

The campaigning is unhelpful because it is unclear what is being talked about.

Merriam-Webster gives the following definition of socialism

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

What is socialism under the foregoing definition? Are food stamps socialism? Is K-12 public education socialism? Is Medicaid socialism? Would taxpayer funded colleges that don't charge tuition be socialism? Is Medicare for All socialism?

Asking the foregoing questions points up there are things in a society which may be viewed as "socialistic" but the presence of those things does not mean the society has a system that is socialism under the foregoing definition of socialism.

The reality is that the United States has numerous things which are "socialistic" (such as Medicaid). These things may be debated as to whether they should be augmented or reduced, and there may be debate about whether the United States should have new things that are socialistic (such as taxpayer funded colleges that do not charge tuition).

The political campaigning about "socialism" that is happening does not start from the foregoing realities but rather is suggestive that there is an either/or choice between "capitalism" and "socialism."

There has been created in the public mind the idea that the Dems will change the United States to the socialism system, and Trump and the GOP will save the country from the socialism system and preserve "capitalism" in the United States.

While some Dems may want to end capitalism and turn the United States into a system of socialism, I think that is not ultimately true for most Dems and not true for an overwhelming majority of Americans.

The political campaigning about socialism that is happening may be viewed by the perpetrators of the campaigning as serving their political interests, but it ill serves the interest of the voters in deciding what they desire for the United States and deciding which candidates to vote for.

It would be good for the country if the political campaigning about socialism would be more reflective of  the realities about the presence of socialistic things in the United States and for the debate to address those things individually

Whether the political campaigning about socialism that is currently happening will persist until Election Day in 2020 remains to be seen.

Organized, direct tweeting campaign tool

For three years I have been pushing the use of a campaign tool of organized, direct tweeting to voters.

I have been pushing this tool for use by candidates in their election campaigns and also by issue advocacy groups.

The ultimate goal of the tool is for there to be a pyramiding of tweets that get sent to tens of thousands of Alabama Twitter accounts. 

As examples and for more information, see  http://dougjones4senate.blogspot.com/2017/11/organizing-this.html and https://al4gunsense.blogspot.com/2019/01/purpose-method.html.

This is an inexpensive campaign tool, which allows for and promotes widespread grassroots involvement in the democratic process.

Besides purveying substantive messaging in a candidate's election campaign or in an issue advocacy campaign, the tool can be used to publicize events that will be happening in the campaign.

I have no proprietary interest in this campaign tool, and it can be borrowed, used and developed by any candidate or advocacy group for their own uses.

If any candidate or advocacy group decides to use this campaign tool of organized, direct tweeting to voters, I would be pleased to lend help.

Letter to DNC

Letter to Tom Perez, Democratic National Committee Chair

Jackie Salit, the President of Independent Voting, is sending the following letter to Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, and is inviting independent activists to join her in this outreach. The letter urges that he meet with a group of independent leaders and take the decisive step of opening the 2020 presidential primaries and caucuses to independent voters.

Dear Chairman Perez,

I write on behalf of the 34 million independent voters who cast their ballots on Election Day. I am the President of Independent Voting, the country’s largest organization of independent voters. I am joined in this outreach by leaders and activists from our network. We represent America’s growing community of independents, now 44% of the electorate. We come from across the country and from all walks of life, from diverse backgrounds and communities.

Exit polling in the midterms shows that independent voters supported House Democratic candidates over Republicans at a rate of 54% to 42%. This support gave the Democratic Party control of the House for the first time in ten years. That means approximately 18 million independents voted for Democratic congressional candidates. Furthermore, more independents came out to vote in the midterms than did in 2014, resulting in a 38% increase in our participation in the November 6th election. It is also worth noting that the political reforms enacted through popular initiatives in Michigan, Colorado, Missouri, Maryland, Florida and Utah had huge levels of support from independent voters.

Our numbers are growing, and, increasingly, we are making the difference in the outcome of elections, while also charting a path for democratic reform. But we are a misunderstood and under-recognized force in the electorate. Contrary to media and pundit spin, we are not “leaners” and we have no interest in becoming either Democrats or Republicans. We wish to remain as independents and we wish to be recognized and respected as such.

In 2016, independent voters were locked out or otherwise restricted in the presidential primaries in 27 states. This meant that over 26 million Americans could not fully participate in the process of electing the President. As you no doubt recall, there was public outcry over this exclusion, particularly from young voters unfamiliar with the closed systems. They were stunned on primary day when they could not vote. In some states—like Arizona where 41% of Latinos are registered as independents, or Florida, where recent surveys indicate 39% of Latinos and 31% of African Americans identify as independents—this exclusion negatively impacts the voting rights of minorities.

We do not want to experience this kind of exclusion again in 2020, and we are reaching out to pursue ways to remedy this problem. Based on the estimated number of independents who voted for the Democrats in the midterms, and the number who were excluded in 2016, we surmise that your party could attract as many as 14 million additional independent voters in the 2020 primaries, if those elections were open to non-aligned voters. In 2016, your state party organizations in Oklahoma, Alaska, California, South Dakota and Nebraska changed their party rules to allow independents to vote. No judicial or legislative action was required. Every state party should do this in 2020.

While we, the undersigned, make no pledge or commitment with regard to supporting any particular 2020 presidential candidate—Democratic, Republican, minor party or independent—we believe the time has come for both governing parties, and for the Democratic Party in particular, to take the decisive step of opening the 2020 presidential primaries to independents. Your party has announced that its first order of business in the new Congress will be the introduction of HB1, a political reform bill. However, to be a truly inclusive democracy, non-aligned voters must have full access to the electoral process, which HB1 does not address.

We, the undersigned, represent thousands of activists across the country who are working towards achieving full voting rights for all Americans. We hope that you will be available to discuss these issues at the soonest possible moment.

Sincerely,

AL & Trump crisis

Support for Trump seems to remain strong in Alabama.

It is hard to see where or how inroads can be made into the Trump support in Alabama.

In the limited realm of the #alpolitics hashtag on Twitter. it is near impossible to get engagement with Trump supporters to evaluate Trump. Basically, Trump supporters and Trump opponents do not communicate with each other on Twitter in Alabama.

The Alabama Republicans in Congress express support for Trump and will not say things critical of Trump.

The Alabama Democrats in Congress, Sen. Doug Jones and Rep.Terri Sewell, are not strong in articulating the case against Trump.

[to be continued]

Getting past collective stupidity

Rep. Palmer posted the below on Facebook on Friday. The comments on Rep. Palmer's post can be viewed by clicking on the comment icon.



I think more is needed to be heard from Rep. Palmer in order to assess whether he will be making a contribution to getting the country past the collective stupidity of the 35 days of government shutdown.