I am not a terrorist
… nor a partisan of Satan
I’m not even “a man of wealth and taste” as the Rolling Stones famously described the Devil, back in 1968; taste yes, wealth no. But the headlines for this post give attributes that the Felon President’s (the FP’s) henchman Stephen Miller, and the FP himself, are pasting on Democrats. And I am a Democrat. So I want to be clear at the outset.
The venerable Oxford English Dictionary (most often, simply “the OED”) gives the origin of “terrorist” to the description of a government. How appropriate to the present circumstance, where the FP and his minions direct masked agents to attack and seize and imprison and deport all sorts of people, criminals or not, speaking Spanish or not, adult or child, citizens or not, provided they have that darker skin tone. How appropriate for the FP who glories in using military power against foreign civilians, in acts of high seas murder.
The original terrorist government was in power during the French Revolution. The Reign of Terror, organized by the Committee of Public Safety, executed thousands and imprisoned many more. That makes violence in the FP’s administration appear less violent, less consequential than it is. But that comparison is small comfort to those in private detention without charge, subject to privation or assault or sexual violence, without a chance to defend themselves, denied the right to a public proceeding. We should be mindful that calling the FP’s administration “terrorist” would seem appropriate to its victims.
Yesterday – Saturday, October 18th – was a day of nationwide protest against the FP and his administration. “No Kings” was the theme, a theme justified by the FP’s disregard of historic norms, law, Constitution. (He even published an image of himself in February, bearing a crown and titled as king.) Leaders in his party and administration tried to besmirch the protest. From the US House of Representatives, its Republican Speaker called the protest a “Hate America rally” bringing in a so-called “pro-Hamas wing” of the Democratic party; its Majority Whip tagged Democrats with “promoting the terrorist wing” of their party. The Treasure Secretary calls us “the most unhinged in the Democratic Party.”
Nobody at yesterday’s No Kings rally seemed unhinged. “Unhinged” and “hate America” better describes Republican officials’ responses to a peaceable assembly petitioning to redress grievances, specifically protected by the Constitution.
I was out gathering signatures for a voter initiative petition “to enshrine equal rights in the Oregon state constitution,” as my pitch went. In more detail, our current state constitution states:
Section 5a. Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.
The US Supreme Court overruled this provision in its landmark Obergefell civil rights decision, striking down all laws against same-sex marriage. But of the five justices who so ruled, only two remain, while three of the four who dissented are still on the court. The three who dissented have since been joined by three like-minded Felon President-appointed jurists.
So it looks to me as if the Obergefell decision is on the way out, since it rested on the Substantive Due Process doctrine, which finds fundamental rights in the due process clauses in the US Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. The Trumpist Supreme Court is now playing fast and loose with prior decisions thus based. A notorious instance allowed states to outlaw a woman’s right to choose how to address her pregnancy, whether to abort it or carry to term. That was Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
The voter initiative petition for which I sought signatures would also enshrine this right of women, to determine the course of their own pregnancies, in the Oregon constitution. Oregon already protects and supports this right well, but in its statutes and rules, not in its constitution.
If the six reactionary Supreme Court justices also repudiate Obergefell, then Oregon’s Section 5a, quoted above, will come back into effect. The registered voters with whom I spoke yesterday, at the No Kings rally, did not need convincing. I presented the issue and they nearly all added their names to the voter initiative.
For me, the most interesting moment in all this was when I was talking to a couple with whom I had only just started speaking. I quoted a portion of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It alluded to today’s protest:
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— what we were doing yesterday, as enshrined in the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. I look forward to more peaceable assemblies, petitioning for redress of many grievances being dealt by the FP, like repeated slaps across the face, punches to the gut. Please join in those assemblies and do whatever you can with your community to uphold a humane way of life and resist the FP’s illegal actions and abusive administration.