A Special Open Forum To Keep You Productively Stimulated While Avoiding The “Concussion Bowl”: Anything Goes!

For this Open Forum, I am suspending the requirement that only ethics matters and topics be discussed and posted. (Only ethical content, of course, but I expect no less from the ethical commentariat.) Jokes, song parodies, memes, anecdotes, reminiscences, favorite passages from literature, historical tales, long essays on Kant…anything goes. The idea is to make the forum irresistible for the benighted few tempted to watch young men reduce their brains to mush for a buck.


46 thoughts on “A Special Open Forum To Keep You Productively Stimulated While Avoiding The “Concussion Bowl”: Anything Goes!

  1. A little girl asked her mother, “How did the human race appear?”
    The mother answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had children, and so was all mankind made..”

    Two days later the girl asked her father the same question..
    The father answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.”

    The confused girl returned to her mother and said, “Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?”

    The mother answered, “Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.”

  2. Comic Sans walks into a bar.
    The bartender says, “We don’t serve your type here.”

    Non joke. I received a business email this past week, from someone that works for a federal agency. Written in Comic Sans.

  3. I am extremely concerned about the potential fallout from the upcoming Senate trial on another unconstitutional impeachment handed down from the House of Representatives, this is the second time the DC Democrats have blatantly bastardized the the Constitution of the United States of America and the spiraling into the abyss seems inevitable. The Democrats have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they have absolutely no respect for the Constitution and they are the ones that control the House Senate and the Oval Office; nothing good can come from this situation.

    What are your thought about the Senate trial and the political situation in Washington DC?

    • Steve, lefties have come to believe they are right and good about everything. So, all that matters is what they think of any particular situation. Everything else is simply evil obstruction of the path to human and societal perfection.

    • The federal government has become Detroit. Once you become Detroit, there is no way out. The only solution is to raze everything to the ground and leave it a wasteland forever. Look at Detroit, once home to over 2 million people with the highest per-capita income in the country. After spending trillions of dollars, in today’s money, to ‘improve’ it with the “New Model Cities” program and later programs. Today, I would propose that it DOES stand as the New Model City the Democratic party envisions them. This is what they want for the entire country.
      • It is horribly corrupt, with rigged elections, corrupt police and government officials.
      • It has the highest taxes of any city in the country and almost the worst services.
      • It has strict regulation of businesses.
      • Its schools cost more than the other public schools in the state, but it scores dead last among the nation’s cities. Making sure there is no educational opportunities for its people seems to be a key goal.
      • There are no jobs and over 30% of city residents are under the poverty line.
      • Your votes don’t matter. Corruption is the name of the game. You don’t need to vote, the city does it for you.
      • Crime is rampant, but don’t try to defend yourself. The worst act of violence in Detroit is trying to resist your attacker.
      • It is bankrupt with no hope of ever recovering. What little money there is goes to corruption and unions. Roughly half its income goes to retirement benefits.

      Read the article in Forbes. Read it with the mindset that these policies are on purpose. They aren’t just incompetence and tragic misunderstandings of reality by every official for the last 50 years. This was the goal.



  4. A question and a rant.

    First the question – what do people think about “influencers” filming themselves doing good for others? On one had, they are showing positive actions and encouraging followers to do the same. On the other, they are financially benefiting so it’s not that selfless, and (as a religious person) I think about the admonition not to trumpet helping the needy ( Matt 6:2-4)

    Now the rant – a (now former) Facebook acquaintance was recently ranting about her student loans and wanted Biden to forgive them (a claimed “conservative” who voted for Biden). About 1 year ago, she was posting about her brand new $75,000 SUV while checking the progress of the $500,000 new house (with swimming pool) they were building.

    • Shadow are you familiar with Phoebe’s Dilemma? In an episode of Friends Phoebe argues with Joey claiming that there is no such thing as a selfish deed. It’s a thing I challenge my congregation to think about from time to time. Personally, I don’t think it matters too much, at least as long as people in the world is being served. People are free to spend there money however they want. I have to imagine most of those followers know what they are in for when they watch those videos. If some people get helped along the way, that’s good too. Sometimes a lot get helped more than once. Take Mr. Beast for example.

      I’ve always found Mr. Beast to be an interesting character (Jack do you know him?). At the moment my oldest is kind of into him. I’ve seen him do stupid stuff like fill a pool full of orbez (SP) and buy a candy bar from every Walmart in America. There was even thing thing he did to make sure Pewdepie was the biggest youtube star and bought superbowl time to help his fame. It mostly seems like a big waste of money. But this is what people pay to see. On the other hand, he has bought out a whole supermarket and donated the food to charity, bought out all whole Game Stop and donated all the items to the Boys and Girls Club, bought out a whole clothing store and donated all the items to a homeless shelter, bought out a car lot (twice) and gave all the cars away for free (and in some cases even paid others to take the cars), opened a reverse bank where he gave away money with no strings, and bought one of his subscribers a $700,000 island. I have to imagine people give him money to do these things too. You ask the average guy who watches his videos and he would most likely say he is doing it for attention. You watch the lady who needed some help buying grocers and was given a whole shopping spree for free and he’s a savior.

      So the question it seems is it ethical? It seems unethical in the fact that he is often wasteful. But I imagine it is more ick than unethical and that seems to be more about the fact that influencers are even a thing in our society. He is under no obligation to help people, it is just something he sometimes does. He earned his fame for his influence not his good deeds.

      As for Christians, the Bible verse your are referencing it is mostly about where your heart is. Christ made that statement because he wanted to make sure people were motived to do good for the right reasons. Selfishness and pride are pretty big anti-Christian statements and doing it to be seen was not the point of doing it. However, as far as I am aware this is mostly a Christian standard. Holding a non-Christian to a Christian standard that is not ethical seems pointless.

    • My wife and I took our children over to a friend’s house last night (yes, the Super Bowl was playing in the background), but we played games and discussed politics and economics, and one particular topic arose: how poorly people are being educated in being fiscally responsible. The matter of student loans was indeed the catalyst for the conversation.

      Why are people struggling with student loan debt? I believe there are three main factors, the first of which is the lack of education in fiscal responsibility. I have witnessed a family capable of purchasing a house, a car, and send their children to college on a single income based on waiting tables at Perkins. This came from a very frugal lifestyle, pinching every penny, taking advantage of every sale and discount available, and not having a great many toys or taking any big vacations.

      This leads to the second point. We have a society that incentivizes living beyond on our means. We are inundated with messages about needing the latest and greatest of whatever it is. The latest PC, laptop, tablet, iPhone, video game console, vehicle, movie, and on and on and on. Moreover, we have generations now that have grown up in prosperity and have only known that kind of lifestyle. My parents’ parents scrimped and saved for years to make ends meet, and eventually manage to land decent houses with a few prized possessions. My parents started with little, but managed to make life very comfortable for their children, who then expected to have that same lifestyle when stating out in their lives. I’ve been fortunate — I landed a very lucrative job and have some meager skills at managing my finances, but I known I’m far from innocent in this matter. When I look at my friends, though, some have less lucrative jobs and are succeeding quite while through very rigorous budgeting and financial planning. Others have landed jobs more lucrative than mine, have a double income, and are still living paycheck to paycheck.

      Accompanying our societal expectation of high living are two pieces that round out my three factors: the PLAN, and the envy. The PLAN is the message given to our youth that if you graduate high school, go to college, and get a degree (any degree) you will be able to get that dream job and live the high life. Then there is the envy, which is the message that if you are not living the high life, which is yours deservedly, then someone is keeping you down. And so the high life is the idol, the the PLAN is the means to worship, and the envy creates a scapegoat in which personal responsibility can be cast onto those evil people who are preventing us from having what we want.

      Having said that, let me ask the group: how ethical is it to demand that people live with lower expectations of standards of living? I can see this run two ways. On the one hand, our prosperity has raised our general standard of living so that the vast majority of people can live in relative comfort, especially in comparison to other places and times throughout most of human history. Why should we expect less? Shouldn’t we seek to keep raising the standard of living for everyone? And isn’t the acquisition of goods required to keep people employed, allowing their standard of living to raise?

      On the other hand, expecting less is good so that we don’t become obsessed with possessions, or keeping up with the Jones, or have nothing in savings or in retirement. If we have 50% of our nation’s households unable to handle an unexpected $500 expense, doesn’t that mean we need to pare things back?

    • This line in the article is ludicrous
      “Any time Trump moved toward starting another war, he faced genuine pushback from his political base. When Trump made the reckless decision to kill the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qassem Soleimani, politicians and the American public, across the ideological and political spectrum, quickly made clear that they had no tolerance for yet another war in the Middle East.”

      What a crock of propaganda. Anytime Trump did anything to draw down troops in the middle east his Generals attacked him. Soleimani was no different than any other terror target and the world is happy the bastard is gone and I challenge the writer to prove that the decision was reckless. The writer is making baseless claims. Trying to assert that Trump is a war monger is like claiming Harvey Weinstein was chaste.

    • It’s more basic than that. Wokeness, in the end, is just a different form of hate. Good old boy racism, radical Islamic hatred of the west, etc., etc., is all at its root the same thing. The names and the faces change, but it all boils down to not agreeing with someone and hating him for it, and having not too much else, or not having enough in your life. The NY-PA border is like that. There’s basically nothing there. While young black men grow up in inner cities where there are few jobs and fewer good jobs, young white men grow up in these rural and backwoods towns where there are few jobs and fewer good jobs, They have no direction, nowhere to belong, few prospects, and a lot of emptiness. Anger, hatred, and resentment go where they’re welcome, or where there’s space to go, and provide, or at least appear to provide, all those things. Not a whole lot of difference between them and the Berber shepherd offered a chance to join Musa ibn Nusayr’s army to cross the Straits of Gibraltar or the simple French yeoman given a chance to join the First Crusade.

      They can/could either stay where they are and not think they matter much, or they can join this cause greater than them that promises at least the possibility of mattering. It comes as no surprise then, that a lot of unemployed or underemployed folks, white, black, or whatever, would flock to the banners of wokeness or some other cause, promising them excitement, direction, and a chance to make some kind of difference in the world. Why comb through the classifieds or knock on doors looking for a job scraping paint off doors for $9/hour when you can instead go out there and break those doors they want you to scrape and beat up the people who made it so you’re looking for that crappy job in the first place? Why walk in the town square or down Main Street past that stupid statue that the people who made your life this way put up when instead you can trash it and thumb your nose at them? At the end of a day scraping paint all you come away with is $63 before taxes. At the end of a day protesting you make the establishment hear a Very Special Message, and leave an indelible mark on society.

  5. A church’s bell ringer passed away. The church posted the job opening in the local newspaper’s classified ads and a man came in with no arms wanting the job. The clergy weren’t sure he could do it, but he convinced them to let him try it. They climbed the bell tower and the guy ran toward the bell and hit it with his head, producing a beautiful melody. They gave him the job on the spot.

    The next day he went to ring the bell, tripped, bounced off the bell and fell to the sidewalk below. Two priests were walking past. One asked, “Do you know this guy?” The other responded, “No, but his face rings a bell.”

    The next day, the dead man’s twin brother came in for the again vacant bell ringer position. He also had no arms. The clergy led him up to the bell tower, where he ran at the bell, tripped and fell to the sidewalk below.

    The same two priests walked up. The first asked, “Do you know him?” The second responded, “No, but he’s a dead ringer for that other guy….”

  6. The Briefing

    From Albert Mohler

    Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Churches Challenging California’s Restrictions During Pandemic: What to Know From This Important Religious Liberty Case
    Big news this weekend from the Supreme Court of the United States. The vote was 6-3 in the Supreme Court, deciding to grant an injunction to two churches in California that had been seeking to challenge the orders coming from California’s Governor Gavin Newsom that effectively shut down all indoor worship services for churches and other religious bodies in California. The 6-3 decision is huge in its impact. It’s also interesting because the Supreme Court, in that 6-3 decision, did not in the majority strike down all of the California restrictions, it left in place a 25% cap, that’s 25 rather than zero, where Governor Newsom had set it, and it also left in place an injunction against singing in worship services. It’s a very interesting story. It continues to unfold of course because the pandemic itself continues to unfold.

    And there are some really interesting arguments here. First of all, the majority granting these two churches and thus through them all religious congregations in California the relief, but then the decision to stop short of granting full relief, not giving a 100% cap, not, for that matter, allowing singing and worship. But the breakdown of the court becomes very interesting. First of all, in the decision that was handed down, the court simply said that the State of California is enjoined from enforcing the blueprint tier one prohibition on indoor worship services. But then, the application was denied with respect to percentage capacity limitations, and then the court said, “Respondents are not enjoined from imposing a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services in tier one.”

    That may sound rather technical. What it means is that right now the churches were asking for relief from the nation’s highest court because the Governor’s number had been zero, 0%. Absolutely no indoor services. The Supreme Court majority here said that zero is the wrong number. It is clearly the wrong number. They granted relief, but they said in the context of the pandemic, there might be some number, in this case 25%. Where do they get that? Well, when you look at the decision, it appears that they put together data from other restrictions that California had put in place, saying that the state does have the right and the responsibility to set some restrictions if it deems them in the public interest during a pandemic, but that there is a particular consideration, strict scrutiny, when it comes to abrogations of religious liberty.

    As we look at the breakdown of the decision that was announced, we are told, “Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch would grant the application in full.” That is to say they would have given the churches relief from the governor’s restrictions altogether. They would have set no cap on indoor attendance. They would have allowed singing as well. The next statement tells us that Justice Samuel Alito is basically where Justices Thomas and Gorsuch are, but when it came to the percentage restriction and to the singing restriction, he would have given the state 30 days to prove its case. Not only to prove the effectiveness of the policy, but also to prove the fact that it did not overburden religious liberty.

    Chief Justice Roberts, as the decision says, “Concurred in the partial grant of application for injunctive relief.” That turns out to be really, really crucial, because remember, in May of last year when we were looking at a church in Nevada making a very similar case, and I would argue making almost exactly the same case, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court turned down its appeal and the Chief Justice was in the five, not in the four. But this time he was in the six, not in the three. Now in one sense the math changed because in the five of the 5-4 majority that turned down the Nevada church was the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but she was replaced by the new Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But if Barrett’s vote merely replaced Ginsburg vote, that would have been a 5-4 decision for the churches in California. But it was 6-3. The reason it was 6-3 is because the Chief Justice of the United States, who had turned down an almost identical argument back in May, responded to the argument and he upheld religious liberty in the decision that was handed down on Friday.

    Now there are lots of interesting questions here. What caused the Chief Justice of the United States to change his mind? And no matter how you read it, that’s effectively what he did. You could almost instantly explain why the math changed with Justice Barrett replacing Justice Ginsburg, but when it comes to the Chief Justice, well, the situation gets very interesting. In a concurring opinion handed down by the Chief, he said this, “I adhere to the view that the Constitution principally entrusts the safety and health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the states,” citing a previous Supreme Court precedent. But he said, “The Constitution also entrusts the protection of the people’s rights to the judiciary. Not despite judges being shielded by life tenure, but because they are, deference, though broad, has its limits.” That’s really, really interesting. He said, “Deference,” that means deference to the state authorities, “Is broad, but it has its limits.” Where was that limit reached? Well, you could put it this way. Somewhere between May of last year and February the 5th, when the Chief Justice changed his mind.

    Now that’s not to imply that the Chief would have decided the case in May differently. I think he decided it wrongly, but nonetheless, I do not argue here that he would have changed his mind back then. But time does have an effect on human beings, and time has an effect upon the facts in the case. The reality is that the Chief Justice came to the conclusion along with his conservative colleagues, that the State of California was miserably failing to prove its case about its mistreatment of churches, banning all indoor services in that state in the name of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Deference,” said the Chief, “Though broad has its limits,” and evidently this was way past his limit.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett handed down her first written opinion in another concurring opinion in this case, and she was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They joined in saying that they emphatically, along with the Chief and their two conservative colleagues, believed that the state had gone far beyond its authority in shutting down all indoor services, but they would have allowed some injunction, including the injunction on singing.

    But then the final concurring opinion came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, and he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. We mention the fact that all three of them would basically have said all the restrictions that are put in place by the Governor of California are unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny and review means that they do not pass constitutional muster, and thus the judiciary is the last line of defense for religious liberty, and the judiciary must step in.

    Now, what we need to note here is if you put all six of the conservatives together, that leads up to the 6-3 vote on behalf of these churches, it is a big win for religious liberty. As a matter of fact, when you look at the Chief Justice statement that deference is broad, but it has its limits. It’s a signal sent not only to the Governor of California, but to any state or government authority that they cannot shut down houses of worship indefinitely, even in the midst of a pandemic, especially when, as the decisions handed down made clear, the reality is that the State of California was demonstrably treating churches differently than other kinds of groups or organizations or entities such as businesses. Justice Gorsuch, in his opinion, that was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito said that what was going on in California is impermissible targeting of religion.

    This is what he wrote, “When a state so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.” Now that becomes very clear itself. He’s saying that the judiciary must step in, the Supreme Court at the very top of the judiciary, the judicial branch of government, when the other branches of government fail. In this case, neither the executive there in California, that is Governor Newsom, a Democratic governor who is currently facing calls for his recall, or the legislature there, neither one of them had stepped up for religious liberty and the governor was actually violating religious liberty in a demonstrable way.

    Interestingly, Justice Gorsuch also wrote this, “Of course we are not scientists.” The we here meaning judges, Justices on the Supreme Court. “We are not scientists,” he said, “But neither may we abandon the field when government officials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally protected liberty.” That’s also just incredibly important. I haven’t seen anyone in the mainstream media point to that sentence, but let me tell you what it comes down to. It comes down to the fact that they are acknowledging that scientists genuinely have something to say. They come with a scientific expertise and insofar as you would call it an authority, they come with a scientific authority. But, as the Justice has made clear, they are not the Supreme Court of the United States, we are. And we cannot just step back and say, “Well, the scientists say,” when a basic matter of constitutional law and religious liberty is at stake. That is a profoundly important sentence.

    Speaking of the standard of strict scrutiny, Justice Gorsuch then wrote, “The whole point of strict scrutiny is to test the government’s assertions and our precedents make plain that it has always been a demanding and rarely satisfied standard.” That again is just really, really important. What these three justices, Justice Gorsuch joined by Alito and Thomas are saying is that when it comes to a government that is limiting any kind of fundamental freedoms, such as religious liberty, strict scrutiny means that the government must prove its case and in actuality, it rarely proves its case effectively.

    Making their argument really tangible, the three justices together said this, “Consider California’s arguments in turn. The state presumes that worship inherently involves a large number of people, never mind that scores might pack into train stations or wait in long checkout lines in the businesses the state allows to remain open. Never mind too, that some worshipers may seek only to pray in solitude, go to confession or study in small groups.” They went on to say, “Nor does California explain why the less restrictive option of limiting the number of people who may gather at one time is insufficient for houses of worship, even though it has found that answer adequate for so many stores and businesses.”

    They go on making other very tangible arguments where the State of California was allowing this, that, and the other thing, but not religious expression, but not religious gatherings, but not freedom of worship. When it comes to the most important statement in the decision, it is this, “California singles out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities. At the same time, the state fails to explain why narrower options it finds sufficient in secular contexts do not satisfy its legitimate interest.” Again, note the fact that even the most conservative justices recognize that the state has legitimate interest, legitimate interest in the context of a pandemic, but those legitimate interests do not give the state unlimited power.

    Also as a footnote here, it’s really interesting when it comes to the singing, these justices indicated that it might be the case that some restrictions on singing would be justified. But they went on to say, “What about even a single soloist who would be singing in the context of worship?” They pointed out that that kind of singing is allowed by what they call California’s powerful entertainment industry in winning an exemption. But you’ll notice, California’s powerful entertainment industry does not represent a constitutional right to entertainment. This is a very similar argument to what failed before the Supreme Court and even with the chief justice in May of last year, when a church in Nevada came and said, “People are free to gather together at Caesar’s Palace, a casino, but not in a Christian Church, that’s fundamentally wrong.” We can only be thankful that the Chief Justice has now recognized that fact.

    The three liberal justices issued a common dissent that was written by Justice Elena Kagan. She was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. She said that when it comes to the governing law, the First Amendment grants neutrality, but the government, that would include the federal government and the state governments, must be given a lot of deference, particularly in the context of a pandemic. They went on to argue about weather, no kidding, so did the State of California, trying to defend its position, “Given California’s mild climate that restriction, the one the Court today lists for houses of worship alone does not amount to a ban on the activity.” In other words, you can make churches go outside, but you’ll notice that is not equivalent to what the state is allowing in other enterprises, and that’s the point.

    The most interesting thing is that the three liberal justices basically avoid the religious liberty argument almost as if it’s an allergy. They really just don’t deal with it. And when it comes to the three liberal justices, they seem to assume that science has a certain authority that trumps even constitutional rights as when they conclude by making the argument that the majority has insisted that science based policy yield to judicial edict. You’ll notice the argument there.

    At the end of the day, you find out in a case like this, what a person in responsibility, a person who must respond to the question, actually believes about what we might call ultimate authority or even ultimate epistemic authority. If that wakes you up, what I’m talking about there is the basic authority for knowing what is true, who gets to say what is factual, and who gets to decide on what information a decision is made. The conservative justices, one way or another, all six of them got to the issue of religious authority and the court’s own responsibility. The three liberal justices ended up criticizing the conservative majority for denying the science. That’s the kind of language you now hear routinely.

    But even if you try to follow with that worldview, it raises all kinds of questions. Which science or what science, and which scientists are to be recognized as having that authority? Science is not a unified block of opinion or judgment. But all that’s in the background, what’s in the foreground is a very big win for religious liberty coming from the nation’s highest court, and any way you look at it, that’s very good news.

    • Excellent lead in to a discussion on why looking to a leadership of scientists is so damned stupid.

      We need experts, without a doubt. But we cannot leave decisions in the hands of experts because they are not generalists who take the balance of ALL considerations before making decisions.

      • Analogous to the (now former?) insistence upon civilian leadership of the U.S. military. Soldiers are expert at killing people and blowing things up. They are not policy makers, although there seem to be lots of senior military guys coming out of various war colleges and other schools who think they are in fact both soldiers and leaders of the populous.

        • Funny how this comes back around when lefties say “I believe in science!” (to refute any position taken by the Trump administration). Science has become their religion. Which is so weird.

  7. Two random thoughts:

    On schools reopening about CoronaVirus: “There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told reporters at a briefing. “Vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for the safe reopening of schools.”

    Yes, she said that. When asked about the comment, Jen Psaki stated that Walensky “spoke to this in her personal capacity.” Walensky was sitting in front of the CDC banner and was speaking to Rachel Maddow in her capacity as the CDC director. So, . . .

    And now for something completely different:

    I had a zoom hearing in federal bankruptcy court this morning. In one case, the trustee was seeking dismissal for non-payment. Without missing a beat, debtor’s counsel declared that the attempted coup on January 6 had forced the Federal Reserve to suspend certain payments that directly delayed a payment to his client. He really did assert that. I find nothing in the news or with the Federal Reserve that the attempted coup disrupted the functioning of the Fed. What am I missing?


  8. I just read something on McClatchy news that leaves me unsure whether to be horrified or just to laugh long and hard. No matter how potentially scary something might be, it can often be seriously droll.

    The article, found here, discusses a new move by the Democrats to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:

    “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

    I’m not going to analyze this, I just include it so that whoever might read this will understand the context of the snippet I’m about to include.

    The article goes on to describe the players involved in this scheme, and how they hope to persuade other members to jump on board with finding some way, any way, to prevent Trump from running in 2024. The interesting part, another case of the mask not just slipping but being ripped off with a hearty “Bwahaha!”, is this:

    “I know there was some concern about it being a bill of attainder, but I’m not concerned about that,” said Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, “because what he did was the most horrific thing that a president of the United States has ever done to this country.”

    Translation: This president is so evil that even a Bill of Attainder, specifically forbidden in the text of the Constitution, will be okay. Because after all, we know that when the Founders signed the Constitution, they understood the phrase, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed” contained therein to exclude really, really, really mean people that the Congress doesn’t like.

    This is your Congress, ladies and gentlemen.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.