A Call to Arms @poorrichardjr - Tumblr Blog

Trump’s pool contractor just put up on its website a confession that their shoddy work caused the Reflecting Pool project to fail, NOT criminal vandalism, a piece of evidence Popok spotted that Olympic Cyclist Davey Hearn’s defense team should pounce on and present at the trial to get him acquitted!

Popok updates on the new “warranty” evidence he found, what it means, and how unlikely it is that Hearn is convicted of “malicious destruction” of more than “$1,000” in a DC Jury trial!

proud2bewoke

This video, presented by Zack Ryan, examines the recent arrest of the Tate brothers in Miami and the subsequent efforts by the Trump family to distance themselves from them.

Key points covered in the video:

Legal Developments: Following new charges from British prosecutors—including allegations of rape, sex trafficking, and child pornography—an extradition request was issued to the United States. The Tate brothers are currently in federal detention in Miami fighting this extradition (1:11-3:14).

Trump Family Ties: The video explores the strategic alliances the Tate brothers formed with the American right, including communications between Barron Trump and Andrew Tate, and efforts by figures like Richard Grenell to influence the Romanian authorities regarding the brothers' legal case (5:45-6:50, 9:10-10:46).

Political Damage Control: The analysis suggests that the Trump family is now "jettisoning" these associates due to the potential reputational damage caused by their association. While there is no claim of direct involvement in the brothers' alleged crimes, the Trump camp is characterized as prioritizing family protection over outside liabilities (11:01-12:35).

intothewildsstuff

An intensive research project in France finds the far right on the march, with voters viewing the political center as vapid and discredited.

This is very alarming.

slyandthefamilybook

what’s your favorite bit of post office history?

the United States Post Office was founded on July 26, 1775, making it older than the United States itself

proud2bewoke

How Republicans Are Painting Veterans as Communists and Terrorists—and What You Can Do About It

This video, created by Kristofer Goldsmith, warns that the current administration is allegedly painting anti-war veterans as communists, domestic terrorists, and foreign-influenced subversives to suppress dissent.

Key points discussed include:

Military Conflicts: The video discusses the administration's push for funding an unpopular war in Iran (0:10-0:15) and claims the Pentagon is drafting plans for a potential conflict in Cuba (1:02-1:10).

Political Narrative: The speaker highlights a recent State Department report on Cuba (1:39-1:45) that he argues is being used to associate anti-war opposition and social movements like Black Lives Matter with foreign communist influence (1:51-2:04).

Targeting Dissent: The video points to executive orders and memos (such as NSPM7) that label organizations like Antifa as domestic terrorists, which the speaker fears will be used to target veterans who speak out against government policy (3:13-3:53).

Congressional Retaliation: Goldsmith cites Mike Bost, Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, as attempting to punish the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) for opposing specific legislation (4:36-4:58).

Calls to Action:

Join or start an anti-fascist book club using resources at veteransfightingfascism.org (5:34-5:45).

Support the VFW and stay informed on veterans' benefits (6:23-6:35).

Contact members of Congress to push for Seth Moulton's War Powers Resolution to curb potential conflicts in Iran (6:40-6:55).

bowlby4

republicansaredomesticterrorists

whosurisold

Profit Prisons require prisoners to make a profit

progressivepower

http://news.usaunify.org/TTjZ97

azspot

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did not have sufficient data to evaluate crash rates for other robotaxi services.

hale-my-nathan

Trump Weird News - "See You At Trump On Obama"

justinspoliticalcorner

The bipartisan consensus for Zionism is done.

Noah Berlatsky at Everything Is Horrible:

The US bipartisan consensus on Zionism is dying. Last week almost half of the House Democratic caucus voted to end military aid to Israel; that followed a vote in May in which almost the entire Senate Democratic caucus did the same. Candidates who oppose Israel aid, and Israel’s wars and genocides, have been winning stunning upsets. Over Trump’s term, Analilia Mejía and Adam Hamawy in New Jersey, Daniel Biss in Illinois, Melat Kiros in Colorado, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Brad Lander, Claire Valdez, and Darializa Avila Chevalier have all defeated Democratic incumbents or won open seats against AIPAC opposition. Currently Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is doing well in primary polls against Haley Stevens, despite the fact that AIPAC has spent a record-breaking $30 million to defeat him.

This political transformation is often presented by centrist Democrats as a kind of betrayal of Democratic principles and/or as a left insurgent takeover. Neocon James Kirchick sums up this analysis in his Atlantic article titled, “The DSA is a parasite: the left-wing faction is hijacking the Democratic party.” If you poke around social media you’ll also see people declaring that the left hates Democrats, or (more than) implying that these candidates are not really Democrats and therefore cannot really represent the party. These arguments are confused in a range of ways. I think in particular, Zionist Democrats fail to see that left candidates are winning in part because normie Democrats see AIPAC and Israel as categorically and deliberately opposed to the Democratic party and its values. Politicians who take money from AIPAC, or who endorse Israel without caveats are, in the eyes of primary voters, betraying Democrats. More, this position is going to be difficult to argue people out of largely because it is true.

[...]

Israel is opposed to Democratic party values

Over the last couple decades, it has slowly dawned on Democratic party voters that Israel’s government and is very right wing. Netanyahu—a far right warmonger, ethnonationalist, and racist—has been the dominant force in Israeli politics for at least 15 years, and arguably for 30. During that same period, under Obama and Biden, Democrats have seen themselves more and more clearly as a party of multi-racial democracy defined by their opposition to an openly racist and fascist movement. You’d have to be pretty dense not to look at Netanyahu and say, “wait, why are we giving this guy guns?”

Democratic voters are not, as it turns out, completely dense. As I discussed here, the party base has been increasingly skeptical of Israel and Zionism. In 2016, 43% of Democrats sympathized more with Israel compared to only 29% saying they sympathized more with Palestinians; in 2018, that number had slipped to 27% of Democrats who said they sympathized with Israel over the Palestinians vs. 25% who said they sympathized with the Palestinians. in 2026, after this most recent horrific stage of Israel’s genocidal policies, only`17% of Democratic voters sympathize with Israelis while 67% of Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians. Over a decade, supporting Israel went from a +14 issue for Democrats to -50. Again as I’ve mentioned before, progressives sometimes talk about AIPAC as if its power comes from its money and its ability to bribe representatives. But this is not in fact how AIPAC’s power has worked in the past. The org has a lot of resources because there are a lot of rich people (many of them Republicans, by no means all of them Jewish) who find Zionism congenial. But those resources were so effective because Democratic primary voters wanted to elect pro-Israel candidates. AIPAC could run an ad identifying its preferred candidate, and that candidate would cruise to victory because when people knew who AIPAC supported, they wanted to support that candidate too.

Things are very different now after a 64-point swing. AIPAC support is now an anchor because people oppose its goal of funneling more weapons to Israel and fighting for Netanyahu. Democratic voters see Israel as opposed to principles of equality, freedom and antiracism which Democrats (however imperfectly) see as important to their party.

In desperation AIPAC has taken to trying to funnel money through deceptively-named PACS so people don’t realize its backing the candidates it’s backing. But this just makes voters even angrier when reporters unearth the connections (no one likes being played for a fool). And it doesn’t get at the underlying problem, which is not AIPAC itself, but the fact that advocating for unlimited arms so Israel can murder more Palestinians is extremely unpopular with a Democratic electorate that thinks racist mass murder is bad.

Israel is opposed to Democrats

It’s not just that Israel and AIPAC are opposed to the values of Democratic voters. Netanyahu and those who support him have made it increasingly clear that they also flat out oppose Democrats, want the party to lose, and want the US turned over to the fascists. There was a time when AIPAC and Israel were very careful to avoid partisanship precisely because they wanted both parties onside and did not want Israel policy to be at the whims of the US electorate. Bipartisan advocacy has become more difficult though as the two parties have become more polarized on basically everything. So Netanyahu just shrugged and embraced the GOP.

In 2012 Netanyahu walked up to formally endorsing Mitt Romney; after Obama’s reelection he bypassed the president to lobby Congress against the Iran nuclear deal at the request of then House Speaker John Boehner. His relationship with Trump in his first term was famously enthusiastic. In contrast, he could barely bring himself to congratulate Joe Biden when Democrat’s most ardent Zionist won in 2020. In Trump’s second term, Netanyahu called his fellow fascist thug “the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House”—and then worked with him to start the incredibly ill-conceived and illegal Iran war, which is at 92% disapproval with Democrats. Israel’s embrace of the fascist GOP doesn’t stop with Netanyahu. Trump is hated across the world, with Israel (at least before the Iran war loss) being just about the only exception—in February he had 76% approval there. And in the US, AIPAC draws huge amounts of funding from Republican sources. It is the biggest source of GOP money going into competitive GOP primaries.

The Republican party is currently attempting, with a good deal of success, to end democracy and impose a fascist authoritarian regime. AIPAC and Israel clearly prefer Republican governance and are trying to boost candidates who want to disenfranchise Democratic voters and end free and fair elections. When they pour money into Democratic primaries, is that really just supporting Israel? Or are they trying to advance their fascist agenda with ratfucking? This isn’t some bizarre conspiracy theory. J.B. Pritzker, the Jewish billionaire governor of Illinois, used to be an AIPAC donor. But, he says, “It became an organization that was supporting Donald Trump and people who follow Donald Trump.” He added, “AIPAC really is not an organization that I think today I would want any part of.”

[...]

Normie Democrats vote left because the left seems like the normie D choice

So, to sum up, Israel is ruled by a far-right asshole who loves Donald Trump. Its populace supports Donald Trump. The group that lobbies for its interests in the US supports Donald Trump and his goons. And all of these—Trump, Israel, AIPAC—embrace a genocide that the Democratic base despises and a brutal illegal war which is the signature policy of the Republican administration. Which Democrats hate. For normie Democrats who identify as Democrats, it is at this point very clear that supporting Israel means supporting Donald Trump. And normie Democrats absolutely fucking hate Donald Trump. When you, as a Democratic primary candidate, pop up and say you are taking money from Republican donors in order to advance the Israel policies of Donald Trump, Democratic primary voters are going to be pissed off. They are going to feel like you have betrayed them. Even if they support you on other issues, they are going to be tempted to support your opponent, because (again) you are aligning yourself with Donald Trump, and most Democratic primary voters believe (correctly) that Donald Trump is a corrupt genocidal fascist who wants to kill them. Israel isn’t the only issue in Democratic primaries, obviously, nor is it the most important one. But Zionists in primaries often seem bafflingly eager to raise its salience. Stevens talks a lot about Israel and seems eager to attack El-Sayed on the issue and boast about taking AIPAC money, even though it’s an issue that at this point almost surely damages her.

[...] No Democrat would run in a Democratic primary touting support from the NRA and opposition to an assault weapon ban because that would be a way to lose. Similarly, support from AIPAC and for unrestricted military aid to Israel is now a serious problem for Democrats in primaries. Stevens and others may win despite this.

Great piece from Noah Berlatsky on how the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus that has shaped American politics has eroded in recent years, mainly on the Democratic side.

AIPAC, like the NRA, has had bipartisan reputations, but over the last 10-15 years, both those groups have become toxic to profess support for among Democrats in most places.

justinspoliticalcorner

In 1971, then-President Richard Nixon secretly installed a voice-activated recording system throughout the White House.

Katie Phang:

In 1971, then-President Richard Nixon secretly installed a voice-activated recording system throughout the White House. Hidden microphones captured Oval Office meetings, Cabinet discussions, telephone calls, even conversations at the Aspen Lodge at Camp David. By the time the system was dismantled in 1973, it had preserved nearly 3,700 hours of presidential history. Nixon believed he was creating a legacy. Instead, he created the Prosecution’s Exhibit A. Then, he tried to bury it. During the Senate Watergate Committee’s investigation into the break-in of the DNC headquarters, former White House counsel, John Dean, testified that he suspected Nixon had a secret recording system. The Committee then asked Deputy Assistant to the President, Alexander Butterfield, in a closed-door meeting if he knew if such a system existed. His answer: “I’m sorry you asked…But, yes, there was a taping system that taped all presidential conversations.” Three days later, Butterfield testified on live TV and confirmed the existence of Nixon’s secret recording system.

On July 23rd, in 1973, Nixon refused to produce these tapes to Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox. What’s incredible is that he didn’t deny their existence or their authenticity. He didn’t argue that they had been manipulated or altered in any way. Nixon simply insisted that because he was the President of the United States, he, alone, could decide whether prosecutors and the courts were entitled to listen to the tapes. That wasn’t unitary executive theory on steroids. That was just obstruction of justice.

Now, at first blush, Nixon’s legal defense sounded like it could pass for plausible: he argued that presidents require the ability to conduct confidential conversations. He expressed the concern that advisers could not speak candidly if every Oval Office discussion risked becoming tomorrow’s headline. Executive privilege was not merely convenient; it was essential to the presidency, itself.

He wasn’t entirely wrong. A president should, and I submit, must, receive candid advice. In some ways, confidentiality is often indispensable to governing. But, the Constitution doesn’t recognize a president’s unilateral authority to decide whether EVIDENCE relevant to a criminal investigation remains forever beyond the reach of the courts.

[...] Those principles had a head-on collision when the US Supreme Court decided United States v. Nixon. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Nixon appointee, no less) recognized that executive privilege exists. But, he also recognized that there’s something even more fundamental and decent at play: the fair administration of criminal justice outweighs a generalized claim of presidential secrecy. When evidence is needed in a criminal prosecution, the President doesn’t get the last word, the judiciary does. US v. Nixon remains one of the clearest affirmations of the rule of law in our constitutional history. Eight Supreme Court justices, appointed by Republican presidents and one appointed by a Democratic president, reached precisely the same conclusion. They didn’t ask whether producing the tapes would embarrass President Richard Nixon, cripple his presidency, or reshape the balance of power.

They asked one question: Is the President above the law? And their answer was unanimous: No.

It’s worth noting that the irony here borders on being Shakespearean: Nixon wasn’t trying to suppress conversations secretly intercepted by political enemies. He was trying to suppress his own recordings created by his own White House, using a system he personally ordered installed. The tapes were intended to preserve history on his terms. What Nixon couldn’t deal with was once those recordings became evidence in a criminal investigation, history no longer belonged to him. It belonged to the American people and to justice. Without the tapes, Watergate might have remained an endless political shouting match, with accusations answered by denials and denials answered by accusations. The recordings changed that because evidence has this remarkable way of ruining carefully crafted and often-false narratives.

Evidence doesn’t vote. It has no party registration, no campaign consultants, and no social media strategy. Evidence simply exists, stubbornly and beautifully indifferent to the ambitions of the powerful. That is precisely why obstruction of justice is so dangerous.

[...] Half a century later, SCOTUS, in Trump v. United States, took a different track in recognizing substantial presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision does not overrule United States v. Nixon, nor does it hold that a president may ignore a lawful subpoena or conceal evidence. The two cases answer technically different legal questions: Nixon concerns access to evidence, while Trump concerns criminal liability and immunity for same.

Great take from Katie Phang on how Richard Nixon was forced to eventually hand over the smoking gun Watergate tapes after an unanimous SCOTUS ruled against him.

proud2bewoke

Donald Trump has all but announced that he will be interfering in the upcoming midterm elections. We only need to look back to January 6, 2021, when Trump virtually ordered an angry mob to attack the US Capitol after lying to them, convincing them that their election was rigged, their vote was stolen, their favorite president was being wrongfully taken from them. He said, 'if you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore, now go to the Capitol and stop the certification - stop the steal!'

Trump tried to use an angry mob to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election win and his election loss. So, of course, he is intending to interfere in the upcoming midterms. Why wouldn't he? He got away with it last time! And we've been hearing some recent rumblings from some of Trump's flunkies, his lap dogs, his sycophants, about how Trump might try to use immigration officers - like ICE agents - to intimidate voters at the polls.

Glenn Kirschner sat down with a former Border Patrol agent for six years, Jenn Budd. Jenn shared her story about her journey from Border Patrol agent to immigrant advocate, which is what she's doing now. She also shared her concerns about how Trump might try to misuse the powers of immigration enforcement agencies to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections.

Jenn is sounding the alarm, and Glen thinks we would all do well to heed the call. Glenn has said that justice is a team sport. We all need to be in the game, including in an effort to protect and promote free and fair American elections.