<nettime> mollygram [(x3): will someone explain, petition for new election, will someone explain]

[Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>]

          [digested @ nettime -- mod (tb)]


Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>

     Re: <nettime> will someone explain
     petition for new election
     Re: <nettime> will someone explain

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:25:11 -0800
Subject: Re: <nettime> will someone explain

Dear David,

I will hop in to put in my understanding to your excellent and timely
question:

Ben is correct about the expansion of the Executive branch after 9/11
and Obama saw that he could push things through quickly through EOs.
Trump has borrowed that idea, probably with his muse, Bannon script
writing, it has been said. But, I will add that Johnson in 1965 signed
off on something called The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
also called The HartCeller Act of 1965  which "marked a radical break
from the immigration policies of the past. Previous laws restricted
immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern and
western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans. In the 1960s,
the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change
its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that
discriminated based on an individuals place of birth.The act did away
with a quota-based system and had relatively few restrictions on
migrants."

Kim points out that we could end up with Pence, who although a
Christian right-winger, would be far more diplomatic with the
international set. It is also a great point to mention that lots of
organizations and opinions and peoples not formerly aligned are now
quite aligned - women, lbgtq, blacks, immigrants - protests are mixed
old and young, all classes - income levels. The sense is that the
entire country as we have known it, through decades, is in peril of
becoming a right-wing dictatorship through and through with the rise of
American fascism at the helm and privatization of nearly ever possible
sector from schools to prisons, to churches being written into law.

As far as the constitutionality of these measures - they are all
generally considered pretty much unconstitutional - not for the form,
but for the content - so, for instance, they may be working on a a law
from 1952, but they have ignored the law from 1965 I mention above.
Despite being executive orders, they can have Congress go against them
by introducing bills against them. Then that all has to be argued.
Trouble is much of Congress thinks its all great, with one or two or a
handful of doubting moderates. The Democrats are listening to the
people, but they are sell outs, most of them so there is growing
disgust with the Dem establish  Almost every example has major legal
flaws and can be objected to on those grounds.

As far as the so-called "Muslim ban" - its constitutionality has
already been challenged by states and cities. Just today, in fact LA
and Massachusetts sued the Administration over the order. And, court
orders or not, there was abuse, and disregard; Homeland Security was
asked to follow the Prez and they did.

Finally, however, is the methodology which has been in the form of what
Naomi Klein calls a "shock" campaign, what you aptly call blitzkrieg.
The EO for the ban was supposed to have gone to a few departments
first, bu they just ordered it without any comment. This tactic raised
chaos as everyone knows, while Trump said it was all great.

It is my opinion that this tactic of willful ordering will continue
whenever DT feels he wants to do something and is fed up with
regulation - one of the going ideological premises of the regime - that
companies are beleagured, as are the citizens, by rules, and so
de-regulate the economy.

Molly

   On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:31 PM, KMV <[1]cuuixsilver@gmail.com> wrote:

        Ben is on target. Additionally, while it seems there are constitutional
        grounds to challenge quite a few things Trump is doing, it requires not
        only the political will from the other branches to mount the challenge,
        but the further will to force the matter if Trump and others alied with
        the Executive branch refuse to comply with the law. Bottom line, who
        will the army/national guard side with if it turns out that the
        Whitehouse ignores court orders.
<...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 14:22:05 -0800
Subject: petition for new election

*i like the direction of this appeal, although perhaps a bit late.*
32 Thoughts about the Petition for a New Election

Perry Hoberman
NY, NY

FEB 3, 2017  It's been a week since I posted this petition, and so far
it has not caught fire, to put it mildly (we're currently at 139
signatures and counting). While I've had countless discussions with
colleagues, friends and family, I don't pretend to understand all the
excuses that people might have for not signing it (a few: it would be
futile, it would never happen, we should focus only on creating a
political crisis through mass resistance, petitions are a waste of
time, etc).

I think I understand each and every objection (I'm even sympathetic to
some of them), and yet I am still convinced that it is a worthwhile
action. But if it's not going to take off, there isn't much I can do
about it. So as one last-ditch effort before I give up on this
entirely, I put together the following list of thoughts; perhaps this
will help to communicate why I'm so taken with this idea, and perhaps
it will serve as kindling to get this thing going. Or not.
Either way, I thank you for signing, and urge you to continue the
struggle, which must be focused primarily on one tactic (the
mobilization of a mass, continuous, visible resistance in the streets),
and must be based around one primary goal (driving the Trump/Pence
regime from power). We need everyone to do everything, so whatever
you're doing, do more. And think and act creatively, always.

32 Thoughts about the Petition for a New Election

1. This is not an ask. It is a demand.

2. It is only addressed to Congress because [1]change.org requires a
designated decision maker to receive the petition.

3. In fact, it is not meant to be delivered to any body.

4. There is no existing mechanism for a recall, annulment, or do-over
of a national election.

5. Petitions arent all meant to be delivered to some congressman with
the naive expectation that they would hop to and act on it just because
the people say so.

6. Instead of a petition, it might more properly be called a call.
However, I don't know a online forums for calls.

7. Signing this petition is not enough. But it just might be worth
doing anyway, given that signing it only takes a moment, and it could
conceivably have a large effect.

8. It would be a mistake to simply sign it and then think youve done
enough. Sign it, and then get back to work: march, demonstrate, occupy,
fundraise, leaflet, call, whatever.

9. The petition will only be useful if hundreds of thousands (or even
millions) of people sign it.

10. Think of it like a crowd estimate for an idea. The more signatures,
the more everyone (the public, the media, the government) are forced to
take the idea seriously.

11. The Trump/Pence regime is illegitimate for many reasons, but the
primary reason is that they are fascists, and a fascist regime is, by
definition, illegitimate.

12. However, the regime is also illegitimate because they assumed power
by nefarious means.

13. The Trump/Pence campaign stole the election through (at least)
seven fraudulent schemes: A: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, B:
the Interstate Crosscheck Program, C: rampant Republican
gerrymandering, D: the FBIs illegal interference, E: Russian hacking,
leaking, and disinformation, F: corporate control of black box voting
machines, and G: sabotaging and shutting down all attempted recounts.

14. The Trump campaigns rampant deception and cheating is no surprise,
given their fascist nature. It's all part of the standard playbook for
fascists.

15. Even with all of that, Trump lost the popular vote by a large
margin, which, by any reasonable measure, should have determined the
winner.

16. Millions of voters were disenfranchised by tactics listed in item

13. Had the all been allowed to vote, Clinton would have won the
election (including the electoral vote) in a landslide.

17. The electoral college is an anti-democratic, racist, archaic
abomination, and should be abolished.

18. This was not a free and fair election. It was a coup detat.

19. Impeaching Trump would be a useful step in removing the regime from
power, but it would be no more than that. They all have to go.

20. We need more than the removal of one pathetic, delusional,
senescent con man who exhibits each and every symptom of Narcissistic
Personality Disorder.

21. Everything Trump does and says is a symptom of his pathological,
deteriorating mental state, but it is also the raw material that Steve
Bannon and others instantly mold into policy.

22. An annulment and a new election would have the advantage of driving
the entire regime from power. This is a necessary requirement for any
reasonable strategy of resistance.

23. The demand for a new election is simple, elegant and easy to grasp.
24. Even though there is no mechanism for a recall, nobody can stop us
from demanding one. Let the powers that be figure out how to make it
happen.

25. Any new election should be free and fair, and open to all
canditdates and parties.

26. It must be overseen by a team of neutral, independent,
international observers. The USA cannot be trusted to do this on its
own, for obvious reasons.

27. This is not a covert scheme to elect Hilary Clinton, Bernie
Sanders, or any other candidate.

28. The election should be open to all candidates  with the exception
of each and every member of the Trump regime, who have proven
themselves to be fascists, and therefore cannot be trusted.

29. The petition is built on the premise that there is broad agreement,
ranging from Trump to his fiercest critics, that the election was
tainted and fraudulent.

30. I am not implying that the truth doesn't matter. There exists
copious evidence for electoral fraud (which we are alleging), while
there is virtually none for voter fraud (which is what Trump is
charging).

31. However, at this point it would be pointless to call for an
investigation into election fraud. Under the Trump/Pence regime, such
an investigation would at best go nowhere, and at worst would be used
to prove voter fraud and to justify further voter suppression.

32. Once we have our country back, we will have plenty of time to focus
on all the nefarious deeds that brought us to this crisis, so that we
can ensure that it never happens again.

[2]https://www.change.org/p/congress-nullify-the-2017-presidential-election-and-hold-a-new-free-and-fair-election

[3]https://refusefascism.org/2017/01/31/fascism-on-the-march-sharpening-crisis-and-the-urgency-to-act/

[4]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/shrinks-break-silence-president-trump-exhibits-traits-m-article-1.2957688

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Molly Hankwitz <mollyhankwitz@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:30:53 -0800
Subject: Re: <nettime> will someone explain

   Carsten, et al,

     <snip>

   So unless Trump has got some serious - well - trumps up his sleeve, it
   seems he's going to be huffing and puffing a lot rather than actually
   achieving anything - other than destroying the reputation, credibility
   and economy of the United States, of course.

   <snip>

   Trump is the blustering puppet of the Congress - trying to do its
   Republican job. The entire bastion of law abiding government may fall
   apart.

   The federal courts is where Trumps' mistakes will be deemed
   Constitutional or not. Parts of his ban are constitutional. Parts of
   the ban are not.

   I'm glad you brought up 'credibility' because if the US government has
   to give back money to 100,000 legally obtained and vetted Visa holders,
   then no one will ever apply for a visa again. He is already making
   wounds that go very deep. ICE will have to reassure visitors that they
   will not be detained and that their visas will hold once they sign that
   contract, or the contracts will have to be completely rewritten.
   Already they are starting to implement ways to question the patriotism
   of US citizens who have lived abroad for more than 3 years - citizens
   born in US or not - who have valid US passports, so there may be
   considerable regime change when it comes to immigration and
   nationality...

   I think we need who, Edward Said on 'traveling theory'?

   molly

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: