Cal's Annotations | * America's Tr(i)ump(h) Of Benign Fasciculation:

Playback speed

Share post at current time

Share from 0:00

0:00

Cal's Annotations | * America's Tr(i)ump(h) Of Benign Fasciculation:

It can‘t happen here – ?! – Is that so?

Cal Caleido

Jul 13, 2025

– #An educational abstract on How N Why it could happen/shouldn’t ‘ve happened by analogy –

[1]

The Senator was vulgar, almost illiterate, a public liar easily detected, and in his "ideas" almost idiotic, while his celebrated piety was that of a traveling salesman for church furniture, and his yet more celebrated humor the sly cynicism of a country store. Certainly there was nothing exhilarating in the actual words of his speeches, nor anything convincing in his philosophy. His political platforms were only wings of a windmill. (Sinclair Lewis, It Can't Happen Here)

DEAR AMERICANS – OR – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AMONG THE PEOPLE OF YOUR KIND

Who will pay the consequences?

Why don’t you check it out as follows …

THE RULE OF LAW

The threat does not come from overseas or from any foreign source – would that, it did; we could easily repel it. It comes from within our own borders and from certain of our own judges, who are widely echoed by various lawyers, professors in journalists. Is the threat of the "ink eradicator" philosophy. ... What is the "ink eradicator" philosophy and what does it propose to accomplish? It's immediate objective is simple to state. It aims to erase the words of the First Amendment from the parchment of our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable Assembly and – by implication – freedom of association. The "ink eradicators" have long since served notice that they disapprove of the whole notion of a written Bill of Rights and would prefer to eliminate the entire document. ... They insist that all words are too imprecise to be taken for what they say, that every affirmative may just as well be a negative and every negative an affirmative, and that only the naive among us will permit a categorical prohibition to stand in the way of what seems expedient at any given moment. Words have so little meaning in their view that one wonders how they can use words to tell us so. ... What do the "ink eradicators" say about the First Amendment? The amendment itself is couched in what the rest of us might consider rather direct terms. It provides that "Congress shall make no law" on certain subjects that the Founding Fathers considered sacred and indispensable to human dignity. Although the Amendment says precisely that "Congress shall make no law" in these fields, the "ink eradicators" claim that it means something quite different. They claim that when it says "Congress shall make no law" it means "Congress shall make no 'unreasonable' law". So far, so ominous. But the next question is: What is "unreasonable" law? They have a quick answer: A law, they insist, is "unreasonable only, if a majority of the judges decide it is." Suppose, then, the Congress proceeds to flout the First Amendment and abridge our freedom of religion or speech or press, how are the judges to determine whether the law is reasonable or unreasonable? This, they reply, is easy: The law "must be reasonable or Congress would not have enacted it. It would be an assault to the members of Congress, for whom all patriotic Americans feel a reverence bordering on idolatry, were the judges to take the first amendment literally and nullify such a law." (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice)

History & Importance[2]
Definition & Elaboration[3]
Supreme Court's Role In A Demcracy[4]
Erosion & Resilience[5]
Assault & Abuse[6]

HITLER’S RULE OF NO-LAW

[7]

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or oluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)

Judicial System[8]
Abominal Lawyers[9]
Carl Schmitt[10]
Supreme Courts[11]

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

[12]

But in the man and his presidency Dowd had seen the tragic flaw. In the political back-and-forth, the evasions, the denials, the tweeting, the obscuring, crying “Fake News,” the indignation, Trump had one overriding problem that Dowd knew but could not bring himself to say to the president: “You’re a fucking liar.” (Bob Woodward, Fear: Trump in the White House)

Democratic Backsliding, Decline & Autocracy[13]

US COURTS‘ MISSION

[14]

In “Hitler and the Germans,” the political philosopher Eric Voegelin dismisses the idea that Hitler — gifted in oratory and political opportunism, but poorly educated and vulgar — mesmerized and seduced the German people. The Germans, he writes, supported Hitler and the “grotesque, marginal figures,” surrounding him because he embodied the pathologies of a diseased society, one beset by economic collapse and hopelessness. (Chris Hedges, The Rule of Idiots)

The Courts' Relevance[15]

US SUPREME COURT

[16]

We woke up this morning to the news that Trump was considering declaring California a police state (by literally sending in the Marines from Camp Pendleton to suppress the anti-ICE protests in LA), that Netanyahu was thinking of killing Greta Thunberg if she dares to dock her humanitarian aid boat on the beach in Gaza today, and that we are now in the 7th day of the messy Shouldn't This Be on Bravo Musk-Trump breakup. (Michael Moore, American Idiots)

Supreme Court & Politics[17]
Supreme Court's Relationship To The President[18]
Trump's Supreme Yes Men[19]
Supreme Degradation Of U.S. Democracy[20]

TRUMPISM

The appearance of a new ruling class reflects capitalism’s political coming of age and with it a new corporate aspiration, not just to exert political influence but to absorb and incorporate the political and transform it, tacitly abandoning the idea of commonality. It is not unusual to encounter the term The imperial CEO applied to business executives. In its most powerful forms the corporation is no longer describable solely by economic criteria (such as market share, profitability). The meaning of economics has expanded to include objects of exploitation hitherto considered outside the pursuit of profits. Capitalism has transformed itself, from a system of activities analyzable through economic categories to one that has adopted political character and the qualities of a new constitutional blend devoid of democratic substance. (Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision)

Historical Backdrop Of US Fascism[21]
Trump(ism)'s Commonalities With Global Autocracies[22]
Trump(ism)'s Commonalities With Fascism[23]
Trump(ism)'s Commonalities With Hitler's Conviction, Victimhood, Comeback & Big Lie Narrative[24]

Any further questions ... anyone, anyone?

Respectfully yours,

Cal Caleido

Frame (Rule Of Law | US Supreme Court | US President) of Reference

Cal's Annotations | * Trump's Total Institutions & Degradation Ceremonies '25

Cal's Annotations | * Trump's Enabling Act '25

Cal's Annotations | * Supreme American Pogrom

Kamala Harris Interviewing Brett Kavanaugh

The Supreme Connection (Network)

The Supreme Connection (Money)

The "US Enabling Act" of 1 July 2024

Scotus' & Croesus' Love Divine!