Wild Distortion

   

J.D. Vance tried to prove a point but failed:

In a clip from an interview with the Daily wire's Michael Knowles, posted Tuesday to the social media platform X, Vice President J.D. Vance augmented that knowledge with the impressive insight that in today's world, even proressives and atheists worship their secular idols using christian forms.

In fact, Vance described that secular worship as "a disgusting butchering of the Nicene Creed." 

"One of the really interesting things about the secular, hyper-progressive, hyper-liberal age that we live in," the vice president said at the beginning of the clip, "is you realize how many of the rituals and institutions and practices of Catholicism show up in the modern world completely divorced from the God part and the grace part of  it."

Therein lies the key to Vance's argument- secular progressives have adopted Christian rituals divorced from God and grace. Hence the deceptive allure of that which they worship.

"So," he continued, "we're thankfully- thanks to Donald Trump, I would say- we're past the point where most people, at least that I see, hang out those hideous signs in their yard that say "in This House We Believe- blah blah blah blah blah- love is love, science is science, no person is illegal.'"

Indeed, those multi-colored, virtue-signaling political signs amounted to a blight on many residential neighborhoods earlier this decade.

"That sign," the vice president added, "is like, such a disgusting butchering of the Nicene Creed."

Vance then characterized that butchering as evidence that "people still have this desire to profess, to do it very publicly, and even to do it in this kind of cadence that you  see in the Nicene Creed, and of course they do it in this very politically motivated way."

He is such a dud. LOL https://t.co/8k4njY2Gjg

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) June 30, 2026

In all fairness, J.D. Vance isn't a dud. But in all accuracy, he's making this stuff up. The Nicene Creed was initially adopted by the First Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and altered by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. This was when Christianity was Christianity, not divided among Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestant, hence 1136 years before the start of the Protestant Reformation. The current iteration was approved in 2011 by a Roman Catholic group, the International Commission of English in the Liturgy.

The Nicene Creed is more commonly invoked in the Catholic mass than in Protestant worship service. However, in its current version it is accepted by virtually all Protestant denominations (of which there is a boatload) because it is a statement of the Christian faith, not peculiarly Catholic.

Vance maintains that the In This House We Believe sign utilizes a "kind of cadence that you see in the Nicene Creed." But the Creed begins only with "we believe," an unmistakably generic phrase. It does not begin with "In This _____ We Believe," as do the yard signs. "In This House We Believe" is eloquent and assertive, whatever the ensuing message. It's hard to believe that the signs are meant to be reminiscent of "rituals and institutions and practices of Catholicism." The cadence is not being copied.

The Vice President could have stated his disagreement with a) "Black Lives Matter"; b) "Women's Rights Are Human Rights"; c) "Science Is Real"' d) "Love Ia Love"; or e) "Kindness Is Everything". But his is a party whose fuhrer has said "I love the poorly educated," so respecting your supporters enough to explain your disagreement is prohibited. Instead, it is branded as "hideous.... virtue-signaling" and hatred of God.

Most of all, it probably was an effort by preppry "J.D." to prove his Roman Catholic bonafides. He believes he needs to do that on the chance that he'll have to run in the 2028 Republican presidential primaries rather than simply being elevated to the presidency upon invocationof the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

Share |

Non-Christian Nation

The Fox News banner during an argument between network host Kayleigh McEnany and network contributor Harold Ford reads "TALARICO IS WORSE" TRUMP SAYS TX SEN CANDIDATE WORSE THAN GRAHAM PLATNER."   I

It's odd to believe that a guy who has said that he believes communion "is a form of asking for forgiveness" and that with it "I feel cleansed" is qualified to refute James Talarico's biblical arguments, but here we are. I don't know precisely what preceded the portion of the McEnany/Ford confrontation but the remarks of the onetime Trump 45 press secretary are intriguing. McEnany comments

There is a one-and-a-half, three minute clip of Charlie Kirk. It is epic A breakdown of how nine of the thirteen original states required you to be a Bible-believing Chistian- the original states of the United States. He goes on to list thirteen of thirteen required a declaration of faith. Several of them said "profess Christ as Lord and Savior." You're lying to say this is not a Christain nation. You're lying to say that God is several genders. You're lying to say that Christianity is not a religion of eclusivity. 

Say what you will but President Trump is very spot-on to say the greatest danger and I believe and I will cross the Democratic Party is not Graham Platner for his moral indiscretions. There are people in the Republican Party who have moral indiscretions, too. It is someone who lies about Scripture and that is what this man is doing.

Kayleigh: He says we are not a Christian nation—false

Ford: The constitution never mentions the bible.

Kayleigh: Go read the original 13 colonies and their constitutions. Nine of the 13 required you to be a bible-believing Christian. pic.twitter.com/4t5uhmDXbA

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 3, 2026

 

If the Center for the Study of  the American Constitution is reliable, McEnany is not entirely wrong when she remarks that "thirteen of thirteen required a declaration of faith. Several of them said 'profess Christ as Lord and Savior.'"  While only one- Delaware- referred to Jesus Christ, all of them required what McEnany presumably means by "a declaration of faith,".adherence to a specific religion.

And what would that religion be? McEnany's clear implication- "Bible believing Christian" and "declaration of faith"- is that all of these states required an office-holder to be a Christian. However, that applies only to five of the states- the aforementioned Delawar, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The other four- New Jersey, North Carolina,, Georgian, and New Hampshire- required the individual to be a Protestant Christian. It was expressed as "professing belief in the faith of any Prorestant sect" (N.J.); "no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion" (N.C.) "of the Protestant religion" (Ga.); and "shall be of the Protestant religion" (N.H.).

So to be clear: not all of the 13 originals were the same.  It has been a very long time that voters required thought that non-Protestants were unqualified because they were of the wrong (in their view) branch of Christianity.

Fortunately, the framers of the USA Constitution believed similarly.and inserted the No Religious Test Clause, which reads  

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Constitution forbids a religious test clause. Individuals who identify as Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian are equally entitled to serve in public office, as are members of any religion, or individuals who have unconventional religious beliefs or none at all.. Further, a growing number of Americans identifies religiously as "none and aside from Jews, an increasing number of citizens are of the Muslim faith or another.  Approximately 45% of individuals of a Christian religion admitted (split infinitive alert!) in a 2025 survey of the Baptist Press to not attending church, and many of the others are lying.

I would like to be a strong safety in the National Football League, or maybe a nuclear engineer.  Kayleigh McEnany would like this to be a "Christian nation". But wishing doesn't make reality, and for better or worse, this hasn't been a Christian nation for a very long time, is not one now, and won't be one in the future.

Share |

Repetition of Intent

I'm not a big fan of the "everything Donald Trump does is a diversion" theory.  Yet, while once is insignificant, twice sparks curiosity, thrice is just too obvious to ignore

On May 4, President Trump hosted a summit for more than 130 small business executives to celebrate National Small Buseiness week. He stated   to hundreds of small business owners at the White House's small business summit on May 4, Donald stated

When I get out of office in, let's say, eight or nine years from now, I'll be able to use it. I'll be able to use it myself." He was referring  to legislation that would allow companies to write off spending on new infrastructure, a policy he said would help business and, by his telling, might still benefit him years from now.

An Indian news website notes that, fifteen days later

US President Donald Trump has once again stirred political debate with remarks suggesting he could one day run for prime minister in Israel, claiming he currently enjoys “99 percent” support in the country.

Trump made the comments while discussing his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ongoing tensions involving Iran and the West Asia. Referring to his popularity in Israel, Trump joked that after completing his current term, he might consider entering Israeli politics.

“I’m right now at 99% in Israel. I could run for prime minister, so maybe after I do this, I’ll go to Israel and run for prime minister,” Trump said during remarks that quickly drew widespread attention online.

My goodness, that "joke" was funny! No, it was not a joke, though Trump wasn't being entirely serious. There are appoximately 3,210 reasons Donald would not run for prime minister of Israel. There also is one reason- diversion- that it was a tactically wise remark.

And one day later, in New London, Connecticut

Trump was speaking at the US Coast Guard Academy's 145th graduating class at Cadet Memorial Field when he discussed 11 icebreaker ships which have been ordered for the US military.

Trump said: "We're making, right now, currently under construction, we have 11. Beautiful.

“And I said, 'Come on, when's the first one coming?' They said, 'In 28'. I said, 'I'm going to be here in 28'.”

The president added: “Maybe I'll be here in 32, too. I don't know. Maybe I will. But I'm going to be here in 28. And I'll tell you, I say, that's great, because I'm going to be there."

This anti-Trump, former GOP member of the House of Represenatives is correct, as he typically is about the President:

So young people in America will now think it’s perfectly normal for a President to give a divisive, political, partisan address to our men & women in uniform. We’ve so normalized his divisiveness, his indecency, his busting of all institutions & norms, his corruption, & his… https://t.co/QXJo9e7Bbf

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 20, 2026

But this tweeter is only half-right when he comments 

Trump tells Coast Guard Cadets that he may illegally still be president in 2032.  "I said come on when's the first one coming? They said in '28. I said I'm gonna be here in '28 maybe I'll be here in '32 too."

There is absolutely no excuse for this.  This is about as unAmerican as it gets.

Un-Ameican, sure. However, it would not be illegal for Donald Trump to be President beyond January 20, 2029. It would be illegal- unconstitutional, actually- only for him to be elected more than twice. The 22nd Amendment reads "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."

So if we're concerned that Donald Trump may serve more than two terms as President, we'll have to rely on something other than the U.S. Constitution, which is a very dicey thing to rely on nowadays, anyway. Donald Trump may not be around three years from now- but he doesn't intend to go away quietly.

Share |

Clear and Present Danger, Even Without a Third Term

Chris Matthews says of President Trump "the man has to be stopped by somebody. And that means his Party."

His party obviously refuses to do so, which makes it all the more unfortunate that Matthews' read of the United States Constitution is accurate only in part. He maintains

We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. He cannot break through the Constitution. I mean, here's a President existence as President. That's a fact. And everybody knows it. But yet  he keeps saying "I may run again next time." I may run again for President and clearly that is a problem because he says he won the 2020 election. He decides what the Constitution will read. He acts like he can do everything.

Chris Matthews: We're founded on the principle of division of powers. Presidents cannot decide things. Here's a president who keeps talking about running for reelection in 2028. Everybody knows he's limited to a two-term existence as president. But yet he keeps saying, I may run… pic.twitter.com/44oxq1KWbS

— Blue Georgia (@BlueATLGeorgia) February 28, 2026

Division of powers is an important principle embedded in the Constitution or, as the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision put it, something which exists within the penumbra of the Constitution. (And we know how that turned out in Dobbs 45 years later.)  Nonetheless, the document does not prohibit an individual from serving more than two terms as President. Instead,the Twenty-Second Amendment reads

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or  acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

And so it was on February 25 that Trump administration officials announced

that the federal government would withhold $259 million in Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the latest effort by the federal government to pull funding from Democratic-led states as President Trump rails against a major welfare fraud scandal there.

Federal judges have blocked most of the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back funds from states like Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. The states have decried the cuts as politically motivated, adding that they would harm hundreds of thousands of people. The Trump administration has pointed to allegations of fraud to justify the cuts.

The latest action targeting Medicaid funds will almost certainly be challenged in court.

Although obviously unconstitutional, it may take awhile for that to go through the courts. And if lower court(s) decide against the regime, Mr. Trump will continue to act illegally until the matter has run its course, because of course he will. It's not Donald's first rodeo as

In January, the Trump administration moved to withhold funding for food stamps and other hunger relief programs in Minnesota. A federal judge blocked that order. The Department of Health and Human Services also tried to freeze $10 billion in funding for child care subsidies, social services and cash support for low-income families in Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. A federal judge blocked that order, too.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration again moved to withhold a smaller pot of Health Department funds that included grants aimed at curbing H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections. A federal judge blocked that move, and his order broadly enjoined the government from terminating public health grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.”

The cuts to social and health care services came as Mr. Trump has fixated on allegations of fraud in Minnesota, claiming, without evidence, that similar large fraud schemes are playing out elsewhere in Democratic led-states.

.

You and whose army? If the Administration decided to defy the courts in this or virtually any other matter, it is questionable he'd be blocked by the same U.S. Supreme Court which ruled in 2024 that the President can do whatever he wishes in his official acts and is completely immune in the "core" acts.

At some point, the regime will again the court(s) the figurative middle finger, as it came within hours of doing on April 7, 2025, until Chief Justice John Roberts let the Adminstration off the hook. Donald Trump has almost told us so, such as when in February of last year, he

posted on social media a single sentence that appears to encapsulate his attitude as he tests the nation’s legal and constitutional boundaries in the process of upending the federal government and punishing his perceived enemies.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Trump wrote, first on his social media platform Truth Social, and then on the website X.

By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social feed, making it clear it was not a passing thought but one he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message in the evening.

The quote is a variation of one sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origin is unclear.

Nonetheless, the sentiment was familiar: Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, has repeatedly suggested that surviving two assassination attempts is evidence that he has divine backing to enforce his will.

He has brought a far more aggressive attitude toward his use of power to the White House in his second term than he did at the start of his first. The powers of the presidency that he returned to were bolstered by last year’s Supreme Court ruling that he is presumptively immune from prosecution for any crimes he may commit using his official powers.

The sentiment has become even more familiar. Whining yet again about losing the 2020 election, in December of 2022 Donald posted on Untruth Social

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

And now, this:

Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly previewed a plan to mandate voter ID and ban mail ballots in November’s midterm elections, and the activists expect their draft will figure into Trump’s promised executive order on the issue.

Peter Ticklin, the Florida lawyer advocating for declaration of national emergency, told the Post "we have a situation whee the President is aware that there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes. That causes a national emergency where the President has to be able to deal with it."

Asked about the idea, Donald replied "I've never heard about it." You're forgiven for having flashbacks to the 2024 presidential campaign, when in the debate with Kamala Harris, Donald maintained "I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." 

Project 2025, which turned out to be a blueprint for the Trump Administration, includes plenty of ideas to detonate free elections.  It's one more reason, a big one, that this man does have to be stopped by somebody, whether Donald Trump seeks to stay in office beyond January, 2029 or even if he doesn't make it through this term of office.

Share |

It Could Be Done

Evidently, anyone could earn a law degree at Fordham University in the 1990's. Last week, Steve Bannon told Chris Cuomo (at 1:36 of the video below) on the latter's show on NewsNation

...and President Trump, I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028. So I've already endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once every century if we're lucky. We've got him now. He's on fire and uh, I' a huge supporter, want to see him again in 2028.

Cuomo, who got his Juris Doctor degree from the Bronx institution in 1995, replied "... and you know he's term-limited. how do you think he gets another term?"

 

 Afterward, Cuomo brought on regulars Bill O'Reilly and Stephen A. Smith to argue about the possibility of Trump serving as President after January, 2029. O'Reilly remarked "O.K., so that's a fantasy and I don't really consider those kinds of things. It's not going to happen, never will happen, not worth my time or your time." Smith responded

Respectfully, Bill O'Reilly, it doesn't matter whether it's not going to happen. It matters that people on the right who preached for decades upon decades about following the Constitution suddenly come on national television and they say there's nothing wrong with circumventing it. That's the issue.

The Twenty-Second Amendment says it, O.K.? It explicitly states in the Constitution that for the presidency, there will be a two-term limit. No person can serve more than two terms. They know this. They're the same people that spent decades and decades telling us "the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution, we're going to follow the Constitution. But now that they've got a guy in office that they swear by, suddenly the rules don't apply.

So I understand what you're saying when you say it's not going to happen. But to dismiss it and act lie it means absolutely nothing, well, I got news for you. The election ain't till 208, o.k., and there's going to be a hell of a lot, a hell of a lot of millions of American citizens, that people on the right who are supporters of Trump, have absolutely no problem echoing and articulating and parroting that kind of speech that Steve Bannon just threw out there. I'm very alarmed by it and I don't even think it's going to happen myself. But the gall, the audacity for him to come on national television and say such a thing. I think it's incredibly alarming.

 

Credit "Stephen A.," as he likes to be called for condemning the GOP for its hypocrisy because for decades many Republicans would claim that they were "constitutionalists" or "strict constitutionalists." And suggestions by Bannon, the President, and others that Trump may run for a third term are alarming, though perhaps they may eventually wake Democrats up to the possibility that Trump may still be in the White House after 1/20/29. 

Nonetheless, he's wrong (as is Cuomo) about the 22nd Amendment, Section 1 of which reads (with relevant portion here placed in asterisks)

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

This Amendment is commonly misunderstood. According to The Independent, "the 22nd amendment of the constitution limits any one person to a maximum of two four-year terms as president." A Newsweek reporter writes that "Bannon has already said Trump should run for a third term in 2028, though the 22nd Amendment bans any one individual from serving more than two terms." Peter Nicholas of NBC News writes "yet others believe that if the Constitution is somehow amended to permit a third term..." and thereby strongly implies that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow that third term.

But it wouldn't. Neither the 22nd Amendment, nor anything else in the document, precludes a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth) term for a President. It precludes election to a third term. Presumably, the authors of the Amendment assumed that no tyrant would become President and if he did, he would get the hint.

Lindsey Choo of Forbes is the rare reporter or pundit who clearly appears to have read the Amendment and not assumed that which isn't present. She notes

The 22nd Amendment specifically bars anybody from being “elected” president more than twice, so some experts think Trump could serve in a temporary presidential role under specific circumstances, such as if he were to become vice president and ascend to the presidency.

Such an ascension would occur if Donald Trump in 2027 or 2028 conditioned his support for a candidate in the GOP primary upon his or her agreement to place Trump on the ticket. If the ticket were victorious, the winning presidential candidate presumably would resign shortly after taking the oath of office. For added effect of the best Nielsen numbers ever for an inauguration, the news could leak that the winning candidate would announce his/her resignation during the acceptance speech. Trump would find the attentions and the ratings absolutely orgasmic.

The Ukrainian parliament has postponed elections until Russia's war against Ukraine ends. President Trump might reasonably (albeit dishonestly) claim in 2028 that the nation is at war, whether in the wake of a missile strike against Iran, fentanyl or immigrants crossing the border, or European leaders defying him on any matter. There also is a legitimate possibility that President Trump would declare a different national emergency or martial law for some reason or another. The man's creativity is virtually endless. 

Alternatively, Donald Trump, 78 years old as of now, may die before the next Republican National Convention. Or maybe he will decide voluntarily to give up the presidency on January 20, 2029. When pigs fly.

Share |

Profile Not in Courage

To be fair

Reflecting Washington’s changing power dynamics, Biden’s meeting with Netanyahu will not be the only one scrutinized: Just as many eyes will be on Vice President Kamala Harris, who will hold a separate meeting with the prime minister. Biden and Netanyahu will meet Thursday afternoon and then visit with families of Americans held hostage; Harris is slated to meet with the Israeli leader later that day.

According to The Jerusalem Post, 71 members of Congress skipped out on listening to Netanyahu's address. One of these was a Republican, the radically right-wing isolationist Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and the other 70 are Democrats. 

Two of these cited prior commitments- Virginia senator Tim Kaine, who nevertheless issued a statement criticizing Netanyahu's appearance; and US Representative Katie Porter of California. Evidently, most of the members who missed the speech did not explain their absence, although doing so, Newsweek reports, were the following: Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland; and US Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida; Jim Clyburn of South Carolina; and Robert Garcia, Sara Jacobs, and Ami Bera of California.

They should have attended the address and in response to incendiary, demeaning, or destructive remarks made by the Israeli prime minister struck a dignified and eloquent pose by remaining seated.

Yet, those who explained their boycott of a speech given by the head of state of this nation's most loyal ally should be given credit for the courage of their convictions. Not so the individual who presides over the Senate, whose one constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate.

The current Vice President of the USA, the world's greatest superpower, skipped the address of the Prime Minister of a nation at war, instead speaking at a conference in Indiana of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Inc. The racially segregated sorority is a member of the Divine Nine, which represents historically black sororities and fraternities including Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, which Harris remains a member of from her days at Howard University.

The 15-minute speech, intended to reinforce support with the base of the Democratic Party (and especially of hers), reportedly had been scheduled months in advance. However, commitments such as this are meant to be broken and as both Vice President (to a President increasingly limited as he ages) and (soon to be) nominee for President, Harris almost as a matter of course will be postponing appointments.

The Vice President should have done so on Wednesday by performing the one task the Constitution calls on her to perform. If she chose not to do so, Harris could have issued remarks critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu, as did several Senators and U.S. Representatives. The alternative was to take the easy way out, as she did.

In ducking the congressional session, Harris highlighted the lack of importance of her office. There is nothing consequential she (or anyone in that position) must do other than casting the deciding vote if there is a tie in the US Senate. She has done that very well but ought to have shown up on Wednesday. Instead, the candidate who is very definitely not a product of DEI showed us what she is made of.

 

Share |

Remarkable Ignorance

Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday included lawyer and Orthodox Jewish conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro;  CNN commentator and former South Carolina state legislator Bakari Sellers; and former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In the Overtime segment, the first question pertained to speculation about the identity of Donald Trump's pick as a vice=presidential running mate.

- Sellers: the only person who poses any fear for Democrats is probably Marco Rubio. Marco- he looks like the future, he has a great deal of experience, he can talk to Hispanic voters in ways and communicate in ways that otherwise Trump and Burgum would have trouble doing and he's a notable opponent to Kamala Harris in debate. There's no concern over Burgum or J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance- uh, he stands for nothing.

- Maher: But,uh, wait a second. I read that because they're both from Florida, Trump and Rubio, that they can't be on the same ticket.

- McCarthy: So Rubio would move to Virginia-same thing that Cheney did. He moved out of Texas and went back to Wyoming. You can't come from the same state.

- Maher: I know. So you move-

- Shapiro: He could residency, actually, in Nevada, right? He actually spends a fair amount of his year in Nevada.

- McCarthy: He would have to resign from the Senate and-

- Shapiro: DeSantis would appoint his replacement.

- McCarthy: Yeah.

- Maher: So-

- McCarthy: He can do it. He just can't be from the same state.

Four men, three white and one black, two Democrats and two Republicans. Three of the four make their living from politics and one is fairly well-versed in politics as a de facto requirement of his vocation as a comedian.

And all of them ignorant.

Article II, paragraph 3 of the USA Constitution states "The electors.... shall vote for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves."  A constitutional scholar and political science professor explains

In 1804, the United States adopted the 12th Amendment, which addresses some of the confusion around the Electoral College and altered the process. The Vice President was put on a separate ballot, allowing electors to vote for one person for President and another person for Vice President. Now, candidates for both offices simply run together as a unified ticket. However, the residual requirement that the electors could not cast both ballots for a person from their own state was not removed.

No, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a presidential and a vice-presidential nominee of the same party can come from the same state. Someone on that four-person panel should have realized it. But the ignorance of an individual who recently served as the highest-ranking Republican in the nation is astounding, at the least.

Share |

Pitiful Little Marco

Pathetic, just pathetic.

It was on March 3, 2016 in Detroit when

Donald Trump opened the GOP debate here by boasting about the size of his genitals. He responded to recent comments from Marco Rubio in which the Florida senator joked about the size of Trump’s hands and said “you know what they say about men with small hands.”

On the debate stage, Trump stretched his hands out for the audience to see – then insisted the suggestion that “something else must be small” was false.

“I guarantee you there’s no problem,” Trump said to howls from the audience at the Fox debate.

Trump twice taunted his rival with "Don't worry about it, Little Marco." No problem, though, because Rubio got back at actor Trump later in the debate. He knew how to ridicule Trump and cut him down to size. The senator called him "Big Donald." Way to cut him down to size, Marco!

                

But that was before Rubio endorsed Trump a few months later, prior to his rapid and radical "transformation from "Never Trump' to 'Forever Trump.'" And now the little man has hit a new low:

Marco Rubio on Jon Karl being stunned when Rubio said he wants to be Trump's VP: "At the end of the day, I think the view is that the president doesn't even deserve to have a vice president." pic.twitter.com/X7B4vZBB3f

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 25, 2024

Oh, the humiliation. Rubio does have the advantage of being Latino and Trump hopes to be able to expand the inroads which polls indicate he has made with that demographic. However, he also is Cuban-America, and that brings into question his ability to appeal to Puerto Ricans in New York or more importantly, Mexican-Americans in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Carolina. Presumably, Rubio would help marginally in Florida but that has become a reasonably safe state for a GOP presidential nominee. 

Moreover, Article II, Section 1 of the USA Constitution reads "The electors hall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." 

That would raise the possibility of four years of President Donald Trump and Vice-President Kamala Harris. Yet as entertaining as that would be, it wouldn't play out that way. Although a resident of Texas upon election as V.P. in 2000, Dick Cheney claimed to live in Wyoming, where he had previously resided and served as a U.S. Senator. And that was that. In the analogous situation, Trump simply would insist that he resides in New York, New York and that would be that.

Nonetheless, the nominee is about as likely to peg Rubio as his running mate as he is, say, Elizabeth Warren. Donald Trump needs a woman to round out the ticket, and there are several, such as Kristi Noem and Elise Stefanik, who would promise whatever necessary to do as requested. Then there are Nancy Mace, who might not, and Nikki Haley, who wouldn't, but would credibly remind everyone that a vote for Joe Biden as President is a vote for President Kamala Harris.

The ads touting Biden-Harris or ridiculing Trump-Rubio would practically write themselves- better yet, the V.P. nominee could write the ads. About a week before the "Little Marco" debate, Rubio had asserted "We cannot allow the conservative movement to be taken over by a con artist because the stakes are too high. Friends do not let friends vote for con artists," asserted the Florida senator about a week before he was dubbed "Little Marco." "Even Marco Rubio endorses Biden-Harris" would have a nice ring to it.

It's very unlikely that Trump would tap- uh, er, choose-  Nikki Haley because he'd have to worry every time he turned his back on her. However, she, Mace, Noem, and Stefanik are only a few of the Republican women who would jump at the chance to be on the ticket, and would alleviate slightly the (accurate) image of Trump as a narrow-minded, misogynistic bigot.

They'd all be very bad in their own way. However, no matter what the lucky lady is expected to do as running mate, it will be hard for her to define pathetic as thoroughly as has Marco Rubio.

Share |

If Not Slavery, What?

Evidently, not everyone who graduates from Orangeburg Preparatory School in Orangeburg, South Carolina remember Article I, Section 2 of a fairly important document.:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the favorite Republican presidential candidate of cable news of the center or left:

Nikki Haley: "We've never been a racist country" pic.twitter.com/qcB0wTjvJS

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2024

Haley states to Fox News host Kilmeade "We're not a racist country, Brian. We've never been a racist country." As to whether the USA currently is a racist country, your mileage may vary. As to whether the USA ever has been a racist country, there can be little doubt when the most important of our founding documents reinforced slavery as an institution and defined its victims as three-fifths of a person. "Blacks are by nature inferior to whites" would have been a little more explicit, but not by much.

She's running a con. Haley adds "I know. I faced racism when I was growing up..."  However, she was, albeit perhaps through no fault of her own, an intimate part of a bigoted system when she was growing up. In 1989 Haley graduated from Orangeburg Preparatory Schools, an "independent, college-preparatory , coeducational day school enrolling students in preschool through twelfth grade," which was formed from the merger of Wade Hampton and Willington Academy. 

The academy was founded in 1964 for parents to circumvent the integration of public schools which had begun in Orangeburg, South Carolina. Or as "a group of Orangeburg parents" stated, "separate private school facilities must be provided...)to) avoid the pernicious 'experiment' being foisted upon the people of this state and nation."

And so in 1971, all 1500 students were white. In 1989, the year one of its graduates was the future presidential candidate, only one of its students was black, and he then moved out-of-state. In 2007, 90% of the town's public school students were black while 95% of Orangeburg's students were white.

Haley may have faced racism as a young person. We know for certain, however, that she studied at a segregated academy existing so white students wouldn't have to attend school with black students.

This "I personally have endured racism but this is not a racist country" game has been played before. Delivering the GOP rebuttal to President Biden's State of the Union address in 2021, Senator Tim Scott claimed

I have experienced the pain of discrimination. I know what it feels like to be pulled over for no reason. To be followed around a store while I’m shopping. I remember, every morning, at the kitchen table, my grandfather would open the newspaper and read it — I thought....

I’ve also experienced a different kind of intolerance. I get called “Uncle Tom” and the n-word by progressives, by liberals.

Then with no apparent sense of self-awareness, Scott declared "America is not a racist country."

The message is "America is exceptional- but I've always been a victim."  And so it is with former UN ambassador Haley, who not only contends "I faced racism while growing up" but that the USA never has "never been a racist country." Never.

Maybe it's something in the water in South Carolina, which Haley previously served as governor and Scott still serves as a United States Senator. Or perhaps it is prompted by the difficulty of being a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, a race Scott withdrew from in November.

More likely, it is "of color" individuals trying to have it both ways. Republican voters don't want to acknowledge flaws in American psyche or in the narrow narrative of America the Greatest which has been predominant in our national culture and, until recently, our educational system. At the same time, they want to remind primary voters that they can nominate someone who would allow them to deny being racist or being part of a racist party, a "some of my best friends are colored" candidate. And, of course: victim.

In a generous interpretation, Nikki Haley has a complicated relationship with the Civil War. However, it could be less complicated than simple hypocrisy. and it may be difficult to discern definitively her motive. However, the left-wing media, itching for a Republican nominee and President who is not a white male, should ask this one how she would describe considering people 40% inferior because of their race.

Share |

Human Cargo

On the afternoon of December 31, Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago issued two tweets which read

This morning just after 1 a.m., a private Boeing 777 originating from San Antonio, Texas landed at the Rockford/Chicago airport carrying 350 asylum seekers. There was no communication from Texas, and the City of Chicago was alerted by authorities in Rockford regarding the flight.

Upon landing, asylum seekers were placed on buses chartered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and dropped in various surrounding suburbs, left to find their way to the city. This is the second recorded instance of the Texas governor transporting asylum seekers via private plan.

Governor Abbott does have an explanation, however. As seen (beginning at 2:21) in the video below, he contends

The authors of the United States Constitution foresaw a situation when the federal government would be inattentive to states that faced challenges at their borders. In response, they inserted Article 1,Section 10 to the United States Constitution to empower states to take action to defend themselves and that is exactly what Texas is doing.

Article I pertains to the legislative branch of the federal government and Article 10 is clearly designed to limit the power of states. Abbott is referring to the third clause, which reads

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Assuming the Governor is sincere (a real stretch, admittedly), he is interpreting this clause as "No state shall, without the consent of Congress..... engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Texas is not in imminent danger of destruction. Nor has it been "actually invaded."  And if it faces imminent- which it does not- danger from immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers, it would have police or National Guard soldiers fire upon the ruthless invaders. Instead, the governor's people have given them one-way passage to northern cities. The invaders.

According to the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation

Present-day non-state actors, like cartel-affiliated gangs operating within the territory of a U.S. state, may fall under the category of invaders, provided their criminal activity reaches a scale or degree of organization that deliberately overthrows or curtails the lawful sovereignty of the state.

Abbott did not take action against cartel--affiliated gangs but against individual asylum seekers.  And if the criminal activity of the gangs reached a scale threatening the lawful sovereignty of the state, he hasn't explained how. His is a policy searching for a rationalization.  

This is not to suggest that the come one, come all attitude of Chicago mayor Johnson is good policy or politics, because it is neither.  However, shipping human beings like chattel from one state to another, especially without notification, stokes resentment and fans the flames of division..  The inhumane approach of one politician and the tone-deaf approach of another cry out for much more effective action from the federal government toward immigrants and asylum seekers. That's one thing Brandon Johnson and Greg Abbot can agree on.

Share |

Please Don't Do This

I have a thought  or two.

Former Obama adviser @davidaxelrod says that a court decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot “would rip the country apart”

Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/YVLFcfD8qX

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 30, 2023

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig also has a few thoughts about the effort in Colorado and in Maine to bar Donald J. Trump from the presidential primary ballot pursuant to 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.

Honig asks, nearly rhetorically, of the judicial process  in the two states "were these hearings fair? Did they comport with due process?"

The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the state's Attorney General to block Trump from being on its presidential primary ballot, though the decision has been stayed. Maine's Secretary of State has determined that the ex-presidential shall not be on the primary ballot in a move which will almost certainly be appealed.

As Honig realizes, the issue of due process will give the US Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn the rulings in the two states with the Court choosing to skirt the substantive issues involve, perhaps a win all around unless your name is "Nikki Haley."

In the video attached to the tweet above, former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod is seen remarking "He's only gained since he got indicted. What we thought would be kryptonite for him turned out to be battery packs."

Not true. Most people (albeit with many exceptions) did not believe that indictment of President 45 would undermine his effort to be nominated by the GOP electorate. Moreover, whether Trump's legal troubles would help, hurt, or have no impact in a general election is very much uncertain, especially because we don't know what the status of the indictments will be come next fall. Nor is it at all clear that the numerous charges actually have aided Trump's bid to be nominated, as Nikki "tell me what you want me to say" Haley has risen in the polls as she (cowardly) argues "I agree with a lot of his policies, but the truth is, rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him."

Yet, Axelrod does understand

And this is a big one for him. Presumably the Supreme Court will deal with that fairly quickly and I expect they will leave him on the ballot and yes, Brianna, I have very strong reservations about all of this. I do think it would rip the country apart if he were actually presented from running because tens of millions of people want to vote for him. I think if you're going to beat Donald Trump, you're probably going to have to do it at the polls.

Of course, it would rip the country apart or, rather, rip it apart more than it already is. There were two instances of impeachment, which polarized an already polarized nation. The charge in the latter case was "incitement of insurrection" and as in the first impeachment, it ended in de facto acquittal, of Donald Trump. Then there was the January 6 Committee, which recommended the Department of Justice level charges of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, conspiracy to Knowingly Make a False Statement, and Aiding, Assisting, or Comforting an Insurrection.

But Special Counsel Jack Smith decided not to charge the former President with insurrection. Thus, Trump never has been charged with insurrection and obviously never has been found guilty of being involved in an insurrection.

Tens of millions of people want to vote for Trump, as Axelrod maintains, and it's not only likely that he cannot be beaten otherwise, in the absence of any criminal conviction whatsoever- as is the case presently- it probably is the sole manner in which he should be defeated.

Nonetheless, the drive to deprive Trump of any chance of becoming President again is a terrible idea for a reason Axelrod hints at, though omits. The country could survive backlash from barring Trump from the ballot. However, the country might not survive the effort for another reason.

Notwithstanding the political harm to the Republican Party of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the major reason Democrats avoided a "red wave" in the 2022 election cycle was identification of the GOP with animus to democracy. This included- but was not limited to- the active effort by Trump, and support of his allies in his Party, to overturn an election.

Few Republican politicians have condemned Trump for his obsession and a CNN poll this past summer found "69% of Republicans and Republican leaners say Biden's win was not legitimate."

Tens of millions of Republicans already believed Joe Biden is President only because of a rigged election. In stepped two conservative law professors, later a conservative former federal judge and liberal law professor to prove them right.

Oh, of course without this initiative most Republicans and GOP-leaning independents still would believe that the election was fishy, if not fraudulent. Yet now, oxygen has been added to the fire of their disbelief and anger. 

For nearly three years, Democrats, never Trump Republicans, and some moderates and centrists have been denouncing the specious claims of the ex-President and the Party which emboldens and enables him, and which refuses to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.   The loser in 2020, who is insistent that he won, has strongly signaled that he won't accept the results of the next presidential election if and when he loses.  Then, and probably during the campaign, he will wail that the process is "rigged."  

If the Trump disqualification drive gains steam, the ex-President won't have to wait to complain about a rigged election. If he is nominated, the claim will drive Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to the polls to vote their displeasure. And if he loses the nomination to another Republican, the claim will drive Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to the polls to vote their displeasure, in presidential balloting and down-ballot. 

Good luck to Democrats asserting that only Republicans are out to savage democracy. Nothing else could facilitate a more effective GOTV nomination and it would make anyone a heavy favorite over the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats behind this drive are encouraging political suicide. For the Never Trump Republicans, it's brilliant strategy.

Share |