The Duckman)))

Noem Raid.

Just a reminder that the Constitution gives Congress the power to set tariffs. It could end this madness any day they chose to discover their power.

I am writing this because it has swiftly become crystal clear to me that many people have no idea what is happening or how this works. Here is a thread for non-academics to put into context what just happened to Dr. Mark Bray, a fellow historian.

Immigration raids in Nashville have made crime victims afraid to cooperate with police and seek counseling.

tennesseelookout.com/2025/10/08/i...

Interesting that both LA and Chicago are holding playoff games in the middle of the warzones. What courage! What pluck!

The last time the House of Representatives took a vote was Sept. 19th. This makes a whole month (and counting!) Johnson is closing the chamber because he's afraid of what's in the Epstein files.

It is now beyond debate that one of Donald Trump’s key goals is the creation of a national police force that is loyal to him alone. To that end, the president has repeatedly federalized the National Guard—often over governors’ objections—and deployed troops to invade blue cities whose residents oppose his administration. He has also transformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement into a kind of secret police that targets, with especially sadistic brutality, journalists, protesters, and others exercising their First Amendment rights. Trump’s multifaceted attack on the Constitution creates a feedback loop of lawlessness: He first erodes the structural limits on his authority, then exploits his newly unchecked power to trample the people’s freedom to dissent.

I think we need to be crystal clear about how Trump's creation of a nationwide police force—loyal only to him—threatens to create a feedback loop of lawlessness in which our constitutional right to dissent may vanish. slate.com/news-and-pol...

MUNGIA, J. (concurring)—I concur with the majority’s opinion.1 And yet I dissent. Not from the majority’s opinion, but I dissent from the racism embedded in the federal case law that applies to this dispute. FEDERAL INDIAN LAW IS A PRODUCT OF THE RACIST BELIEFS ENDEMIC IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEM While it is certainly necessary to follow federal case law on issues involving Native American tribes and their members, at the same time it is important to call out that the very foundations of those opinions were based on racism and white supremacy. By doing this, readers of our opinions will have no doubt that the current court disavows, and condemns, those racist sentiments, beliefs, and statements.

Since the founding of our country, the federal government has characterized Native Americans as “savages”: They were “uncivilized.” They had little claim to the land upon which they lived. At times, the federal government attempted to eradicate Native Americans through genocidal policies. At other times, the federal government employed ethnic cleansing by forcibly removing children from their parents’ homes to strip them from their culture, their language, and their beings.2 Federal Indian case law arises from those racist underpinnings. The majority correctly cites to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), which is one of the foundational cases involving tribal sovereignty. That opinion is rife with racist attitudes toward Native Americans. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, describes a tribe’s relationship to the federal government as one of “ward to his guardian.” Id. at 17. In effect, the opinion presents tribal members as children, and the federal government as the adult. That theme would follow in later opinions by the United States Supreme Court—as would the theme of white supremacy. Cherokee Nation began with the premise that Native American tribes, once strong and powerful, were no match for the white race and so found themselves “gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms.” Id. at 15. The white man was considered the teacher, the Native Americans the pupils:

Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. Id. at 17. This characterization of superior to inferior, teacher to student, guardian to ward, was repeated in later United States Supreme Court opinions. In Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), often characterized as the “American Indian Dred Scott,” 3 the Court used that rationale to justify ruling that the United States could break its treaties with Native American tribes. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. They are communities dependent on the United States. Dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. . . . From their very weakness and helplessness . . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power. Id. at 567 (quoting United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 383-84, 6 S. Ct. 1109, 30 L. Ed. 228 (1886)). Our court also carries the shame of denigrating Native Americans by using that same characterization: “The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be both protected and restrained.” State v. Towessnute, 89 Wash. 478, 482, 154 P. 805 (1916), judgment vacated and opinion repudiated by 197 Wn.2d 574, 486 P.3d 111 (2020). 3 See A

Returning to Cherokee Nation, Justice William Johnson’s separate opinion was less tempered in how he considered the various Native American tribes: I cannot but think that there are strong reasons for doubting the applicability of the epithet state, to a people so low in the grade of organized society as our Indian tribes most generally are. Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 21. Native Americans were not to be treated as “equals to equals” but, instead, the United States was the conqueror and Native Americans the conquered. Id. at 23. In discussing Native Americans, Justice Johnson employed another racist trope used by judges both before and after him: Native Americans were uncivilized savages. [W]e have extended to them the means and inducement to become agricultural and civilized. . . . Independently of the general influence of humanity, these people were restless, warlike, and signally cruel. . . . . But I think it very clear that the constitution neither speaks of them as states or foreign states, but as just what they were, Indian tribes . . . which the law of nations would regard as nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither laws or government, beyond what is required in a savage state. Id. at 23, 27-28. This same characterization was used by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte KanGi-Shun-Ca (otherwise known as Crow Dog), 109 U.S. 556, 3 S. Ct. 396, 27 L. Ed. 1030 (1883). Justice Matthews described Native Americans as leading a savage life.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Mungia has an extraordinary opinion condemning "the underlying racism and prejudices that are woven into the very fabric" of SCOTUS opinions about Native people.

"We must clearly, loudly, and unequivocally state that was wrong.”
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...

This should be automatically disqualifying. He should be removed from office today. This is beyond disgraceful, and it is clearly setting up a pretext for government violence.

ICE had a large white drone they were trying to put in the air but neighborhood pressure grew and they started to pack up and leave. One neighbor was shouting that ICE is a bunch of losers and an agent said to her “you’re going to lose. We will win.”

The House Majority Whip is also insisting that a peaceful "No Kings" demonstration is in fact a "hate America rally" held for the "terrorist wing" of the Democratic Party.

Really feels like they're trying to manifest a violent reaction to it.

Probably also going to cause the next global financial crisis, but you know, tradeoffs in everything:

The Speaker of the House is telling the Fox News audience that a peaceful demonstration by Americans on the National Mall will actually be a gathering of organizations the administration has designated as violent terrorists.

Seems bad?

We’re going to be an authoritarian petrostate if we aren’t already.

Dusty, taxidermic armadillo in American flag bandana makes case to replace Lee Greenwood.

That was my guess!

Not a subscriber, so I can't read this. But I'd be pretty surprised if Madison and Marshall said the president should declare a fake drug emergency to unilaterally impose tariffs, then leverage those tariffs to bully other countries for personal grudges and pressure prize committees to honor him.

If you ever stuck up for "ideological diversity ' or good faith debate or whatever and thought guys like Thiessen were part of that congratulations you are a huge sucker and Thiessen and the other conservatives are laughing at you now that they won.

Is this the free markets or the personal liberties

Phillies, Eagles, Flyers: Black Thursday in the COBL.

Back when I was (somehow) even dumber, I used to laugh that every rap CD at Tower Records had “C-RAP” on the price tag.

Not that I’m a huge fan now, but boy oh boy was I close-minded about rap music back then.

Dumb kid.

“an allegedly former cocaine person” is Alanis Morrisette’s best album

Donald Trump has done so many unbelievable things during this election that he has almost lost his capacity to shock. Last night's promise to jail his political opponent was only the latest example, but let's not forget that he has also... 1. Indicated that his political opponent should be assassinated. 2. Openly incited his supporters to violently attack his opponents' supporters. 3. Instructed security at his rallies to violently restrict press access. 4. Invited a foreign power to interfere in the election. 5. Indicated that he would use nuclear weapons in low-grade tactical situations. 6. Indicated that he would withdraw the United States from NATO and other international organizations/treaties. 7. Openly expressed admiration for some of the world's most violent and repressive national leaders. 8. Promised to use racial & religious qualifications to bar people from entering the country. 9. Bragged about sexually assaulting and/or indicated a desire to sexually assault women. 10. Openly mocked a disabled person when he knew the cameras were rolling. 11. Promised to restrict the press' First Amendment freedoms. 12. Indicated a desire not only to fight terrorists, but "take out their families" as well. 13. Indicated that racial/national background characteristics are disqualifying for federal judges. 14. Has expressed a stunning ignorance of and disinterest toward the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers system. This is just what i can remember off the top of my head; I'm sure there are more equally galling/dangerous incidents. Individually any one of these incidents should disqualify a presidential candidate, and probably would in a normal year. Taken as a whole they indicate a candidate who is so far outside the mainstream of American politics that he should never have been let in. Even if you stipulate that Hillary Clinton has done everything she has ever been accused of doing (which she hasn't), Donald Trump would still be th…

Posted this to Facebook 9 years ago today. It's why I have such little patience for the "No one could have predicted it would be this bad!" people. Some of us did predict it. And we tried to warn people.

Amazing.

There are limits to my loyalty, Chad. 😆

The worst people in the world

My condolences. Even though my preferred team ended up on the right side of the result, that was probably the *last* way I wanted this to happen.

Yeah, you’re just not gonna win games in the postseason scoring one run.

Hate to win like that, as much as I can hate to win.

Happ had been so bad, too.