The Law and Political Economy Project at Yale Law School is hosting the following panel:

The Political Economy of Inequality, Democracy & Oligarchy, on Friday, November 13, 2020 at 5:00 pm eastern time.

This panel discussion will focus upon the erosion of democratic institutions and the rise of oligarchy that has followed in the wake of unprecedented economic inequality. The panel will address elite efforts to entrench themselves politically as well as economically, including the consequences of such efforts in terms of human development. The panel will focus upon the specific context of election 2020 and the uncertainty it is creating. The subversion of democracy and the law governing our democracy naturally holds many costs, and each panelist will address such costs. Each panelist will also seek to articulate some mechanism for a path forward.  Register here

PANELISTS:

Emma Coleman Jordan, Georgetown Law Center

andré douglas pond cummings, Univ. of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law

Atiba Ellis, Marquette University Law School

Steven Ramirez, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law

Gerald Torres, Yale Law School

In 2020, pivotal events ushered in a season of antiracism rhetoric in the U.S. The brutal deaths of unarmed black Americans at the hands of police officers and white vigilantes, and the disproportionately harsh impact of COVID-19 in the black American community, launched the nation into a discussion about systemic racism. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the 2020 antiracism discourse was merely seasonal rather than enduring, and unlikely to result in meaningful change. 

Black American’s vulnerability in the face of systemic racism is not limited to death, sickness and injury as a result of COVID-19 or antiblack bias in police departments. Our vulnerability is precipitated by things like lack of access to nonpredatory financial services. This is just one of the contexts that compromise black Americans’ economic survival. Unacknowledged systemic racism destroys the wealth and wellbeing of black individuals, families and communities, sometimes causing working and middle-class black Americans to plummet into poverty. As 2020 comes to a close, an election that threatened democracy in the U.S. and the existential threats of an uncontrolled pandemic, eclipse a system of intentional antiblack racism on the part of the financial institutions that engaged in predatory mortgage lending in the years leading up to and beyond the 2008 recession. It is now well documented that lenders, brokers, and mortgage servicers engaged in conduct that was fraudulent and misleading. The mortgage market charged excessively high rates and fees, engaged in high-pressure sales tactics, imposed unnecessarily harsh prepayment penalties, and distorted loan structures to avoid the application of consumer protection statutes.  But, more than a decade later, many black Americans are still fighting to prevent financial institutions from taking away their homes. 

In a book I coauthored with Dr. Janis Sarra, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, Predatory Lending and the Destruction of the African American Dream (Cambridge University Press, 2020), we describe new iterations of predation that continue to target black consumers years after financial institutions settled litigation that alleged pervasive fraud on their part for steering black Americans into predatory subprime loans. But these renovated predatory practices are obscured by the nation’s focus on COVID-19 and a vitriolic election season. Meanwhile, more black Americans will lose their homes even after investing all or most of their wealth in attempts to keep them. This reality requires the calls for moratoriums on mortgage foreclosures to be answered in the affirmative.

On December 1st, 2020, Nasdaq filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt additional listing rules requiring enhanced board diversity and disclosure of firm diversity efforts.  The new listing rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to have on their board of directors, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+.  If the firm does not meet this listing requirement, it must explain why they do not have at least two diverse directors sitting on their board.  Additionally, the new listing rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics regarding its board of directors.  Nasdaq defines underrepresented minorities to include Black or African America, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, two or more races or ethnicities.  Smaller reporting companies and foreign companies have additional flexibility in satisfying these new listing requirements by seating at least two female directors.  These new listing rules require approval from the SEC.

NASDAQ's stated goal for requiring diversity among its listed companies board makeups is to provide the investing public with a "better understanding of the company's current board composition and enhance investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity in the context of selecting directors, either by including at least two diverse directors on their boards or explaining their rationale for not meeting that objective." To support this new listing requirement, Nasdaq pointed to over 24 studies that found a link between diverse board and more robust financial performance with better corporate governance.  Under this proposal, Nasdaq-listed companies are required to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics within one year of the SEC's approval of the rule.

CNN reports that Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman stated, "Nasdaq's purpose is to champion inclusive growth and prosperity to power stronger economies." Non compliance by Nasdaq-listed companies could lead to delisting.  

Nasdaq's move is part of a growing momentum to see that corporate board diversity is taken seriously across the United States.  California has for two years been requiring gender diversity on corporate boards and has recently begun requiring racial and ethnic diversity on California boards as well.  Goldman Sachs has recently announced that it will require any company that it assists in taking public must include at least one diverse board member. 

The Corporate Justice Blog has long advocated for board diversity as a priority for expanding human capital and realizing greater financial benefits for the firms and its shareholders. We argue that a commitment to diversifying the board, both in gender and racial diversity as well as worldview diversity enhances the performance of the corporations that so commit.  See here, here, here and here.

hat tip:  Deepali Lal, 3L, Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law 

photo: courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Eyewitness accounts regarding the events of January 6, 2021 give us the most reliable version of what happened that dark day. Particularly those eyewitnesses from the Republican Party who do not seek partisan advantage. For example:

"What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the President of the United States."

Republican Senator & former Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney, Jan. 6, 2021. 

"Today’s violent assault on our Capitol, an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump. His use of the presidency to destroy trust in our election and to poison our respect for fellow citizens has been enabled by pseudo political leaders whose names will live in infamy as profiles in cowardice."

Former Trump Defense Secretary and Marine Corps General James Mattis, Jan. 6, 2021.

"The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like."

GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Jan. 19, 2021

"Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol… We condemn the violence that took place here in the strongest possible terms… To those who wreaked havoc in our Capitol today, you did not win. Violence never wins. Freedom wins."

Trump Vice-President Mike Pence, January 6, 2021.

"These men and women in the uniform, they got overrun. One officer got killed…they got broken arms. You don’t understand what was transpiring at that moment and that time. . . . People brought ropes. . .[T]hey were well planned for it. They scaled walls. . . . They, they overtook the place.”

"Let me be clear: Last week’s violent attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American and criminal…And make no mistake: Those who are responsible for Wednesday’s chaos will be brought to justice…The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters."

GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Jan. 13, 2021 

"Today, the people's House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A women died. And people need to go to jail. And the President should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be."

GOP Rep. Chip Roy, Jan. 6, 2021.

WOW!  The US Capitol became a combat zone on January 6.

The legal upshot of the above is Trump and his cultists levied war against the US in violation of 18 USC section 2381! They engaged in an insurrection in violation 18 USC section 2383!

These provisions carry severe criminal sanctions and section 2383 prohibits insurrectionists from ever holding federal office again. Trump also disqualified himself from federal office under the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3. As painful as it may be, the Biden Administration has little choice but to fully investigate these potential violations of law immediately. Donald Trump in particular must face swift justice. .

In his unending fantasy and lies of victory, President Donald Trump unleashed a violent coup on our democracy, our constitutional republic and ultimately our freedom in the lawless pursuit of autocracy, dictatorship, and dimwitted megalomania. 

This directly aided and abetted the ongoing efforts of Vladimir Putin to use Russian New Generation Warfare (RNGW) to weaken, undermine, subvert, and diminish the power of the USA to defend itself and its interests and allies across the world. As Lt. General H.R. McMaster explains RNGW aims to weaken the US and other democratic societies through the sustained use of misinformation. They seek to “disrupt, divide and weaken” American democracy. Yet, again the Trumpists continue to toss the nation and its people into bloody pitched battle with each other while doing the bidding of Putin.

Addendum:

"[T]here can be no soft-pedaling what happened and no absolution for those who planned, encouraged and aided the attempt to overthrow our democracy, Love of country demands nothing less. That’s true patriotism.” 

Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, Former Republican Political Operative, January, 6, 2022.

"The importance of January 6th as an historic event cannot be overstated. I was honored and proud to join my daughter on the House floor to recognize this anniversary, to commend the heroic actions of law enforcement that day, and to reaffirm our dedication to the Constitution.  I am deeply disappointed at the failure of many members of my party to recognize the grave nature of the January 6 attacks and the ongoing threat to our nation.”

Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney, January 6, 2022. 

January 6th, 2021 was a dark day for Congress and our country. The United States Capitol, the seat of the first branch of our federal government, was stormed by criminals who brutalized police officers and used force to try to stop Congress from doing its job. This disgraceful scene was antithetical to the rule of law. One year later, I am as grateful as ever for the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police who served our institution bravely that day and every day since. I continue to support justice for those who broke the law.

GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, January 6, 2022. 

On the first anniversary of January 6, GOP Senator Ted Cruz and Trump-appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray called the violence "a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol" and "domestic terrorism," respectively.

I was an associate at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison from 1988 until 1991. These almost three years were impactful even though my time there was brief. To say that I learned a great deal is an understatement. My work at the firm took me to places like Gracie Mansion, and to Hollywood for several weeks to perform due diligence for a music publishing company. My time there was further evidence of my African American family’s dramatic upward mobility in just six generations. My maternal grandmother was the granddaughter of enslaved African Americans. She worked as a maid and cook before she went back to school. With a sixth-grade education, she passed the New York State licensing exam for cosmetology. She opened a successful hair salon, and she and my grandfather sent my mom to Hunter College. My mother retired decades ago from a successful career as a scientist and school administrator. And when I went to Paul Weiss, I was making more money than anyone in my immediate and extended family had ever made.

There were about 400 lawyers at the firm’s New York office during the years I was there. Only six of those lawyers (associates) were Black/African American. None of the approximately 80 partners were Black.  My time at Paul Weiss was brief because my plan was to become a law professor. But while I was at the firm, I was supported and mentored. That is why I was surprised to see a 2018 LinkedIn photo of the firm’s new partners in which almost all were white and male. None were Black.

Happily, much has changed in the years since I was associated with the firm, and even in the almost three years after the LinkedIn photo. I attended the firm’s webinar (The Biden Administration:  What’s Next for Businesses) on March 3^rd, 2021. Two of the firm’s (Black) litigation partners were on the panel– Loretta Lynch, former U.S. Attorney, and Jeh Johnson, Former Secretary of Homeland Security. After the webinar I went to the firm’s website that reported the following: “27% of our attorneys self-identify as racially diverse compared to the 20% Big Law average” and “Racially diverse partners are 13% of the equity partnership, compared to the 8% national average”. 

After seeing this website report, I was left wondering how many of these “racially diverse” individuals are Black. Paul Weiss played such a significant role in the upward trajectory of my African American family. And Paul Weiss issued a statement in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. But its racial diversity disclosure had only a fraction of the precision that has made the firm a giant in the legal profession. Law firms can address antiblack racism, if they choose to do so, only if they confront the problem and its impact on the success of Black lawyers. Firms can’t do this if they fail to consider that Black lawyers face issues that are saliently different from those endured by white women, and indigenous, Asian and Latinx individuals. Firms can make their disclosure on these issues more meaningful by counting the Black lawyers. If the numbers are not good (on retention, percentages of partners), it’s time for the firm to engage in some meaningful introspection.

Oh, and one more small, but important point. People of color bring racial diversity to an organization. White people bring racial diversity to an organization. But to say that an individual (a partner, for example) is “racially diverse” is the kind of inaccurate, imprecise language that clouds discussions about difficult issues like antiblack racism. 

Some of the most significant corporate commitments have come from JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft, AMEX, Bank of America, PayPal, Salesforce and Chase.  These large corporate commitments do not account for the other minority-focused investments, such as JP Morgan's initiative to lend more openly to minority owned businesses and black and brown home purchasers.  The corporate giving trend is fueled by changing expectations of younger employees and progressive consumers that expect corporations to become serious about corporate responsibilities to social issues and causes.  Advocates argue that these corporate commitments will not be enough to achieve racial equity in housing, employment and policing, but acknowledge that if these corporations are serious about their commitments, that it can mark an important start.  "'The world is changing, and the expectations of how companies engage are changing,' said Brandee McHale, Citi’s head of community investing and development."

ABC News reports that "[s]ince late May, Grabois said, financial commitments by companies to racial equity causes have grown 'exponentially larger' than any other cause other than COVID-19. A report by McKinsey & Company, which tracked corporate responses from May to October, found that of the top 1,000 U.S. companies, 18% made internal commitments, like diversifying their hiring, and 22% pledged to promote racial equity through donations or other means."

Whether corporate giving to racial equity causes results in systemic change and reform remains to be seen.  Holding corporations to their commitments will likely be an important undertaking.

photo courtesy of wikimedia commons

 

All times are Eastern.  

To register and attend by Zoom for free, click here.

The Tulsa Law Review will host a special symposium issue of the law review as part of a commemoration of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre with a one-day live/hybrid event on May 21 and publication of the papers in September 2021.

During the Tulsa Race Massacre, which occurred May 31–June 1, 1921, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history and one of the least-known; news reports were largely squelched, despite the fact that hundreds of people were believed to have been killed and thousands left homeless.

May 21 @ 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

Virtual Event Free: Register Here

This one-day conference will feature the work of law professors, artists, poets, Black Wall Street business owners and historians.

Suzette Malveaux, provost professor of civil rights law at the University of Colorado School of Law, will provide the keynote address. For six years, Malveaux served as pro bono counsel to the plaintiffs in Alexander v. State of Oklahoma, a suit filed against Tulsa by victims of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. As part of a team of attorneys, she represented the victims before the federal courts, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States) and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Other featured law professors will include Keeva Terry of Howard University School of Law; andre cummings of the Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Amos Jones, executive director of the African American Trust for Historic Preservation; Angela Addae of the University of Oregon School of Law; and many others. Confirmed participants include Dwight Eaton, a descendant and owner of Black Wall Street Liquid Lounge; TU Professor Kristen Oertel, who will present a talk titled Black Indians, Red Dirt: A Brief History of African Americans in Indian and Oklahoma Territories, 1840–1907; and Professor DeWayne Dickens, who will present a talk titled Learning from Greenwood: When Voices Are Silenced.

 I just published a new law review article with the Seattle University Law Review entitled: Students for Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action and Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity? The article can be downloaded here: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol47/iss4/7/. Here is the abstract:

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater institutional efficacy, including possible race-neutral alternatives. The programs also failed to break down stereotypes through the introduction of a critical mass to empower diverse voices. The programs thereby resembled prohibited quotas or racial balancing. As such, the programs at issue violated Grutter, which still governs race-based affirmative action in college admissions. More importantly, the Roberts court paved the way for more expansive diversity-based admissions programs by permitting institutions to value individual racial experiences, which authentically further an institution’s mission and interests. After SFFA, the use of race as a factor could well face time limits. Contrastingly, individualized racial experiences may benefit college applicants at institutions that embrace diversity in an authentic way without facing any time limitation. Further, institutions with distinct missions may value diversity in a race-conscious way but without any racial preference. In sum, the Roberts Court guides the use of race in college admissions toward a race-neutral, diversity-based paradigm such that institutions may still unlock the empirically proven benefits of cultural diversity with only de minimus interference from the courts. This approach rests upon a powerful policy basis that leads to superior innovation, macroeconomic outcomes, social cohesion and, therefore, superior national security for the United States. This approach thus could support a powerful interest convergence.

The article shows that Supreme Court did not overrule its prior affirmative action precedents, and in fact paved the way for universities to embrace cultural and cognitive diversity to enrich their educational missions. This is important because the case has been widely misconstrued.

My next article will extend the Court's holding to corporate DEI efforts and demonstrate that such efforts are not only remain lawful but also essential to rational human resources management.

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.

 On March 11, 2024, Donald Trump claimed that cutting Social Security and Medicare could help him cut the national debt tremendously. (See video above). On March 22, 2024, the House GOP announced cuts including a plan to raise the retirement age. This was the second straight year that the House GOP proposed a budget with deep Social Security and Medicare cuts. Trump started promising cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his second term before some audiences as early as January of 2020.  At a Fox News Town Hall in March of 2020, again promised to cut Social Security and Medicare.

All of this talk of cuts forms the prelude to last Thursday's debate which included a question about cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Biden gave a straight-forward answer saying that no cuts are necessary if we raise the Social Security tax to the same level for all. Currently, those making high incomes pay much lower rates than those making low incomes. As President Biden explained at the debate:

Right now, everybody making under $170,000 pays 6 percent of their income, of their paycheck, every single time they get a paycheck, [But] millionaires pay 1 percent – 1 percent. So . . . I would not raise the cost of Social Security for anybody under $400,000. After that, I begin to make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share, by increasing from 1 percent beyond, to be able to guarantee the program for life.

That provides a sensible and efficient means of securing Social Security. And, Biden never varies from that position.

Trump on the other hand, takes different positions with different audiences and covers the full spectrum of options. According to NBC News:

An NBC News examination found that Trump's views have zigzagged over the years — from calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” in 2000 to endorsing then-Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to restructure Medicare in 2012 to positioning himself as the protector of those programs in 2016 to taking aim at some retirement spending in his White House budgets (which never became law).

Essentially we know Trump is lying because of his radically divergent positions over time. In fact, in 2016 he promised to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and then in his budgets he proposed cuts.

 In recent months, Trump opened the way for Social Security and Medicare cuts and refuses to disclaim the GOP plan to cut those programs as, shown above. Which brings us to the his debate comments in response to a question about entitlement cuts. While Biden gave a simple and clear statement of how he intends to save Social Security and Medicare, Trump attacked Biden's honesty and switched the topic to immigration, Russia, Ukraine, a mysterious laptop, the VA, and luxury hotels. Trump was incoherent. Remarkably, he never addressed his recent comments about Social Security and Medicare cuts, nor the GOP plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. Trump provided no explanation of his prior budget proposals including Social Security and Medicare cuts.  As stated in the Washington Post: "Protecting Social Security . . . was also a major theme of Trump’s 2016 campaign. His avowed stance, however, is at odds with Trump’s own record as president: Each of his White House budget proposals included cuts to Social Security and Medicare programs."

Trump has staked out so many positions on Social Security that no matter what he says he lies. The only thing we know for sure about Trump and entitlements is that despite campaign promises to the contrary he included Social Security and Medicare cuts in each of his annual budget proposals as President. Given the GOP commitment to cutting Social Security and Medicare a vote for any GOP candidate is a vote to slash your Social Security and Medicare benefits by about 30 percent. If Trump gets elected the GOP will have a clear path to gutting Social Security and Medicare as he promised to do in a second term in 2020, and regardless of any lies or gibberish he feeds the voters today. 

Donald Trump's longest serving and hand-picked Chief of Staff, Four Star Marine General John Kelley, recently confirmed that Trump called those serving in the military "suckers" and those making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and our freedom "losers." These comments now confirmed through numerous sources prove Trump's unfitness for office. Some background:

 Donald Trump promises to sign an Executive Order on day one of his new term abolishing Birthright Citizenship. This will trigger litigation thar promises to land in Trump's Supreme Court for final adjudication, Assuming Trump prevails there, the GOP already introduced a Bill to abolish Birthright Citizenship legislatively. JD Vance co-sponsored that Bill. This amounts to an historically unprecedented assault on virtually every American's Citizenship. 

Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that no child is eligible for birthright citizenship if their parents are unlawfully present in the United States, present in the U.S. for diplomatic purposes, or engaged in a hostile operation against the U.S.

Notably, the Act proposed by Vance includes no limitation on this "clarification" of who enjoys citizenship and who does not. The Act includes no limitation on retroactive effect and lacks any express limitation providing for prospective impact only. The Constitution only proscribes retroactive criminal sanctions The intent of the Act is to correct errors in prior interpretations of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

More broadly, the GOP assault on virtually everyone's citizenship seeks to maximize the power of the next Trump Administration to round-up citizens, as discussed in my prior blog post. As such, this amounts to the greatest power-grab of rights over American citizens in history.

 

 On September 17, 1787, upon exiting the final session of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin told a bystander that the Founders had established “A republic, if you can keep it.” In my youth this statement made little sense because I assumed humans would always want democratic self-governance instead of dictatorship. Humans will always value freedom including self-governance over oppression.

Today, our Constitutional Republic faces grave dangers and unprecedented political challenges that prove Franklin’s point. The Constitution requires constant citizen vigilance to assure that as political winds blow from whatever direction our Constitution endures to assure the freedom and self-governance of successive generations of Americans. Citizens must certainly value the freedom of all over petty partisan advantage.

Today that certainty wavers, and I understand more than ever how dictatorships and autocracies take root and how republics and democracies fail. We now face an epic election on November 5. The presidential candidates run neck and neck. Our Constitutional Republic hangs in the balance. The manifest threats include:

1)    1.   One candidate openly called for the “termination” of the Constitution merely so that he could maintain his grip on power, legally or not.

2)    2.   That candidate previously gathered an angry mob, on January 6, 2021, and told them to “fight like hell” to stop the Constitutional certification of election 2020. That mob subsequently brutalized the Capitol Police and vandalized the Capitol all in an effort to overturn a Constitutional election at his behest. Today, he calls those convicted of criminal misconduct on January 6, “unbelievable patriots”, and he promises to pardon them all.

3)    3.    He openly ridicules and defames the integrity of our Constitutional elections and attacks American elections as “rigged” and “fraudulent” without any evidence. Over 60 courts of law rejected these lies, including rulings by judges he appointed. Today, he leads an effort undermine the certainty of our elections, and use violence and chaos to sow mistrust of democracy in America.

4)     4.   A jury he helped pick, from his native state, found him unanimously guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 34 felony counts of illegally influencing election 2016 through hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an adulterous affair.

5)      5.  He insults our military heroes willing to die for our Constitution and the hard-won freedoms it secures, calling them “losers” and “suckers” according to, among others, his own handpicked and longest serving Chief of Staff, General John Kelly.

6)     6.   He courts the favor and affection of brutal dictators. He leaked classified intel to one and “fell in love” with another who now menaces virtually our entire nation with nuclear weapons.

7)    7.    He faces criminal charges that he mishandled classified documents, refused to return documents belonging to the United States and obstructed justice.

8)    8. He openly promises to be a dictator on Day One. This promise entails massive Constitutional violations.

9)     9.  He promises “bloody” violence if he should prevail and implement his unconstitutional proposal for “mass deportations” with no due process and massive violations of human rights.

10  10.  Even today, he refuses to commit to the peaceful transition of power. He persistently refuses to ever concede defeat.

No President nor candidate for the White House ever committed any single one of these offenses against the Constitution. Each offense renders a person unfit for the Presidency.

Combined, these offenses make Donald Trump incapable of credibly taking and adhering to his oath of office to defend the Constitution. This inability to take the oath of office usually plays no role in an election. Today it assumes the utmost importance. Trump attacks our Constitution and seeks unbridled power. Donald Trump’s extreme embrace of fascism complete with Big Lies, scapegoating and hatred renders him the most unfit candidate in history. 

Using Skype to conduct interviews with guests for your podcast is fairly easy but potential inexperience of your guests can lead to sub-optimal audio quality. The following simple tips can significantly improve the audio quality of such an interview ensuring that you and your guest come across at your very best in the final podcast.

The post Podcast Skype Interview Guidelines for Guests appeared first on Richard Farrar.

Podcasts are increasing in popularity but if no one knows about your podcast then you're unlikely to get many downloads. To increase traffic to your podcast people have to be able to find it and the easiest way of achieving this is by submitting your podcast to a selection of key podcast directories.

The post Top Podcast Directories to Submit Your Podcast appeared first on Richard Farrar.

Six years ago I began this blog, so I take the opportunity to review my blog’s progress over the past 12 months and to plan its direction for the year ahead.

The post Annual Blog Review: Year 6 appeared first on Richard Farrar.

A technical analysis of the top 4 podcasts about podcasting looking at the audio production, file formats and embedded meta-data used by each podcast

The post A Quasi-technical Analysis of the Top Podcasts about Podcasting appeared first on Richard Farrar.

Seven years ago I began this blog, so I take the opportunity to review my blog’s progress over the past 12 months and to plan its direction for the year ahead.

The post Annual Blog Review: Year 7 appeared first on Richard Farrar.

After 6 years The Internet Monthly podcast is shutting down on this blog, but exactly the same content can be found elsewhere online as the Zen Monthly podcast

The post The Internet Monthly Podcast No-more appeared first on Richard Farrar.

OFTEN the only girl on the rugby league and union fields, Picton 10-year-old Caitlyn Halse had to put up with her fair share of discrimination in her early playing years.

THE sun was out on an extremely­ hot third annual Fisher’s Ghost International Rugby Sevens event on Saturday.

AS A wicketkeeper, Hannah Trethewy is often the least praised team member on the cricket pitch.

It pits the best young shire cricketers against each other - but with an average age of just 18, Roseville are out to show they’re no pushover.

Triathlete  Beth White will take on her next challenge later this month, competing in the Paratriathlon World Championships.

THE North West Sydney Bluetongues are more than a talented cricket team.

Macquarie Fields police are seeking information from the public after a teenage girl, 13, was approached by a man while she walked to school.

THE iconic Harry’s Cafe de Wheels, which has nine locations across Sydney, will open up outside Campbelltown Marketfair by mid-December if all goes to plan.

IT may seem obvious, but Bradbury residents are being reminded to lock their cars at night and to remove valuables after seven vehicles were broken into in the past week.

A massive new firefighter training college will be built at Erskine Park on Mamre Road.

A SPORTS centre, bowling alley, and cafe will transform a bare 12,000sq m western Sydney corner block that fronts a problematic traffic spot.

TRISTAN Potts gave up two other sports after he gave hockey a go and loved it. He started just a few years ago and has already represented NSW in Japan.

A MULTI — STOREY development planned for western Sydney has been approved despite years of resistance from council and residents.

WHEN you meet Peter Chalouhy it is hard to imagine the bubbly little boy may not make it to his 14th birthday. A stem cell gene therapy trial is his only hope but funds are needed to bring it here.

Newly arrived refugees will get the chance to highlight the culinary cultures of their homeland at a MasterChef-inspired event to celebrate refugee week.