23 thoughts on “Friday Open Forum!”

  1. I sent this to Jack over a week ago.

    He said he wanted to post about it, but the Open Forum looks empty.

    This is a stupid click-bait article about how certain dog breeds have changed over 100 years.

    https://fabcrunch.com/trending/dog-breeds-changed-appearance-syn/?utm_campaign=Dogs-breeds+WW+08-10+Dynamic+Pub+5+8c3f+-+Unknown+WW+FB+HPS+Dynamic+FC+-+VN+Pub+5+8da9+-+Unknown+WW+FB+HPS&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_content=23857299446450642&network_code=HPS&site_code=FC&hashed_lean_url=af934bb145e581e30fdd11583f89f4ac&ppc=1&c1=23857299441480642&c2=23857299441960642&c3=23857299446450642&v=9&fbclid=IwAR0vTD9zQMvT5oJQ7146AsQuicrL3mQhvKB6hzveutuiwDzyIlK5aamCQ5k

    Then, I noticed that many of the pictures contained pixalated (pixalized?) dog penises.

    What is wrong here, if anything? Is it just the stupidity of it all? Or, is there something more?

    -Jut

    Reply

    • Doggy porn? What idiots.

      There was an old movie Ghost and MrChicken where 2 spinster sisters described Luther ( Don Knotts) as pixelated suggesting he was “different” as a person. But then everyone was pixelated to those two biddys.

      Reply

  2. So, the DOJ is suing SpaceX for NOT violating the law. The DOJ is saying that SpaceX needs to hire illegal aliens under ITAR, but ITAR seems to indicate that the refugees have to be granted refugee status. The ‘immigrants’ the DOJ is talking about are likely people who came across the border, claimed refugee status, and got a court case for 2027. The US grants about 20,000 people refugee status each year. That is about the same as the number of people who are crossing into just El Paso each week. The DOJ is not suing any other companies for this.

    Definitely not a political prosecution. Can the DOJ send their reputation any lower? At his point is the DOJ even pretending to enforce the law or are they trying to intimidate the US population into complying with any government mandate?

    Reply

    • Wait. Isn’t US Citizenship and Immigration Services a division of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review is charged with enforcing US immigration laws in immigration appeals is a division of the DOJ?

      jvb

      Reply

  3. I’m growing concerned about the increasing drumbeat over a new wave of lockdowns coming along. The CDC and WHO have each released a new COVID variant that they are concerned about, citing the large numbers of mutations each has. Neither one mentions that the symptoms of the new varient are even more mild than recent variants. Morris Brown college in Atlanta has already posted a new mask-required policy, including a moratorium on parties and large gatherings. A Northern California hospital has put its’ masking requirements back in place, as has Lionshead studios – which has also put an automatic self quarantine policy in place for employees who have travelled recently. I’ve also read rumblings that it isn’t just COVID – that this year’s Flu and a strain of RSV going around also justify masking again. Celebrities are starting to urge Americans to get ready, as is the White House. And they’ve already begun dismissing the people who have pointed out that all of this is just coincidentally in time for the 2024 election season to get rolling.

    I think if they do decide to lockdown again, we’ll see even more of a divide between the red and blue states’ responses. I also believe that the government will have no qualms using its new favorite tactic of pressuring corporations and businesses to lean on the public for them, making unconstitutional edits sound like a measured response to the demands of the private sector. No matter what, though, if and when any form of Lockdown 2.0 brushes up against the elections – closing polling stations, encouraging mail-in ballots, even just chilling public gathering – an already chaotic and embattled election cycle would have an entirely new dimension of contention poured over the top of it. And I can’t see a single reason why the left wouldn’t be completely in favor of that at this point – it’ll just make it that much easier to steal another one.

    Reply

      • No. The 2024 election. All ballots will be harvestable, er, mail in and the counting won’t conclude until Joe wins, er, until some later date to be determined after the election “date.”

        Reply

  4. I will comment on Will Baude’s and Michael Stokes Paulsen’s claims.

    1. Baude and Paulsen claimed that 14th Amendment, Section 3 “covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support”.

    There is, of course, no support for their interpretation. To the contrary, Article I of the Constitution defines treason as waging war on the United States, or providing aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. The reason for specifying what treason is was because nations in Europe were infamously known for adopting broad, sweeping definitions of treason. By narrowly defining treason, the authors of the Constitution sought to limit the abuse.

    Section 3 simply disqualifies people for insurrection; it does not redefine insurrection to include a broad range of conduct.

    2. Baude and Paulsen claimed that 14th Amendment Section 3 is self-executing. . No, it is not. In fact, Section 5 plainly reads “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Indeed, in the context of providing a remedy for equal protection violations, Congress had provided federal courts jurisdiction, and of course, continued to provide the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review state court judgments on federal law issues, which now include equal protection. It does not mean, for example, you could simply kill someone because you feel they had violated equal protection.

    They claimed that state election officials could remove federal candidates from the ballot notwithstanding an express grant of authority either by a provision of the Constitution or Section 5 legislation. But why does it stop there.

    If it is self-executing, anyone can enforce this provision. A person who just signed an enlistment contract with the United States Marine Corps and took the opath of enlistment could, under their view, feel that FJB provided aid or comfort to the Taliban by botching the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and, as such, could legally depose FJB from office.

    But would this not be mutiny and likely a whole host of UCMJ offenses? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and, under the Baude/Paulsen interpretation of the Constitution, a Marine private would have the authority to depose FJB no matter what the inferior UCMJ reads.

    If a freshly-enlisted person decided to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, are Baude and Paulsen willing to represent that enlistee pro bono if the enlistee is court-martialed for mutiny?

    Reply

    • These lawyers, retired judges and law professors are embarrassing themselves and the profession. They are pathetic. Terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome. Maybe it should be called “Larry Tribe Disease” in the medical literature. And there should probably be “The Adam Schiff/Dan Goldman Variant.”

      Reply

  5. A recently banned commenter (and I assume DNC and/or Biden campaign paid political operative) asserted in a comment that the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, Victor Shokin, was official U.S. (and all right-thinking peoples and countries) policy and the idea that Biden had conditioned the provision of U.S. loan guarantees on Shokin’s firing was a wild-eyed, Republican conspiracy theory. I’d never even heard such an assertion. Turns out it’s been a Democrat talking point at least since the first Trump “impeachment.” Francis Menton has posted a discussion of John Solomon’s reporting:

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-8-24-the-bidens-stone-cold-crooked-8-this-is-getting-ridiculous

    I also like Francis’s discussing and citing authority which destroys the Democrat (and media) talking point that payments to Biden family members are not bribes of Joe. The Second Circuit confirmed Dean Skelos’s conviction for bribery effected by the payment of around $200,000.00 in salary to his son. Which is, of course, peanuts compared to what dear old Hunter scooped up.

    Reply

    • Why do some insist that if Shokin were corrupt, and various actors wanted him removed, that disproves the claim that SloJo was trying to protect Hunter and Burisma from Shokin by getting him fired? The two things are not mutually exclusive; they can both be true.
      Recent revelations appear to confirm that Shokin, even if corrupt in some ways, was investigating Burisma, so the company hired Hunter and Archer with the expectation that they were buying protection…and they got it.

      Reply

Leave a reply to Edward Cancel reply

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