fauxlaw

But, then, I remember the famous quote by author, Richard Back: "The greatest sin is to limit the Is. Don't"

"The Is," in Bach's context, is a master consciousness the Universe. Might be equated to God; at least, that is my interpretation.

As there is no end to knowledge, even God may still be learning.

Or, if He truly does know all, He may not have yet experienced everything that can be experienced.

Or, He has both knowledge and experience completely mastered, in which case, that may be a boring existence, because I cannot imagine waking up one morning, realizing I have nothing more to learn or experience. And that becomes eternal boredom. I sincerely hope that is never the case.

I assume that God and we exist eternally [no beginning, no end] and that each individual [including God] are on a path of eternal progression, and we each are in varying positions on that path where some advance more quickly than others, such as God, Himself, and they may be forever ahead of us, and can act as guides to help those who are more slowly progressing.

Assuming the above is true [I believe it], it may not matter so much where in the path of eternal progression we individually are, and more important that we are currently progressing and not in retrograde.

Might be that assassination attempts are getting more widely documented

Given the increasing pressure on the media to scoop a story, another explanation is that the media is not restricting itself to report on what really is news, but, unfortunately, also engages in reporting of fantasy as real news, such as the report, repeating in frequency as days pass from the would-be-assassin's attempt last weekend, that the alleged attempt was, itself, staged by the administration. This allegation is utterly negated by the would-be-assassin's own construct of his manifesto, to which he personally referred before clamming up. I'm just waiting for some "journalist" to report that the would-be-assassin is an agent of the Trump Admin. Some in the media are dumb enough [Kimmel comes to mind, as well as Kammycakes] to suggest it, and that will greatly offend the perp.

Frogs on the other hand.

You are correct. See above, post #5, my reply to Sidewalker. Note in spite of his accusation, he had to use a human to graphically present crying.

Sorry [no, I am not], but I am knowledgeable enough re: my spirit guide to know while frogs have nasolacrimal ducts, they do not produce tears to cry; it's limited to keeping the comparatively large eye surfaces moist, much more efficient in. emotional control than human counterparts. There's a rather efficient brain in the head. And their vocal transcendence over the human range of sounds, nevertheless, does not include "was, wah." That is why you had to use a human image; can't get that with a frog.

I observe your source of information, Anthony Fisher [the Mess-Now Sr. Editor, not the Australian Archbishop], and his clear bias, environmentally, toward existential threat, when most educated people understand that Earth's environment was far more noxious by volcanism 140M years ago, when mammals first populated the planet, then it is today, yet those mammals survived to give rise to man. Anthony is clueless to that history, ands seems just as clueless to world politics and the threat to it presented by Iran. Iran ≧ ancient volcanism relative to Earth's survival.

As word salads go, Kamamlala holds the Aces, but the Eights belong to Kimmel. Kammycakes can be forgiven; she knows no better. Kimmel, by contrast, owns his failure legitimately. To be as funny as he can be - but frequently, of late, chooses otherwise - one must have a head that can actually construct on-the-spot, but Kimmel's funny bone has a very flawed streak with regard to his TDS, and expressing condolence for Melania's widowhood only means Kimmel is one of those who thinks his guns fire themselves by thought, alone. Maybe he should ban his mouth until his TDS is cured.

Iran's latest proposal to the U.S. just continues to foment their desire to control the region, specifically targeting the Strait of Hormuz as the personal property of Iran when the Strait happened to be international waters strrictly not belonging to Iran, exclusively. So, where's the U.N, defending international rights? Where's the ICC, defending against Iranian aggression in the Strait ofHormuz. Yes, it's true; Iran is not a member of the ICC, just as the U.S. is not, and therefore, by agreement of the I*CC, they have no jurisdiction to prosecute either country, but that does not stop the ICC from rattling sabres against the U.S. The I.C.C., however, remains m um with regard to Iran. Just another chicken-shit international organization useless to true world justice.

Y'all seem to be using a lot of Trump avatars, lately. Is it misery loves company, a mirror image, or lack of personality?

"Be yourself, everyone else is taken." - Oscar Wilde

OK, I've read both your source material [https://guneducationalinformation.weebly.com/] and theirs, and come away with major flaws: first, the root definition of a "gun." Sounds simplistic, but the fact is, gun bans in the US do a terrible job of defining what "guns" are being banned by law. "Assault weapon" is a useless term, because it, on its own, is poorly defined, Gun restrictions need to specify maker and model type and numeric, at least. Few gun bans do this adequately. There is no definition of what the @$$$%@#$ "assault weapon" means, specifically.

Additionally, these "studies" [they're really just surveys, and statistical surveys are fraught with built-in error just by poorly structured questions, often intended purposefully to guide the sampling population to a desired response, because most "surveys" do not have a truly unbiased purpose. Therefore, how questions are worded often pre-selects a desired answer, Not the way to run this particular railroad. Further, there are margin of error [moe] limits that, if exceeded, result in inaccurate results. Any moe in excess of ±2.5% [most exceed 3%] is already suspect.

I was a certified SSBB, so I lived and breathed statistical design of experiments over my career, and have seen virtually every error that can be made in statistical sampling and analysis. These studies on gun control are victim to these errors. Worse, most studies like this start from the idiocy that the gun can shoot itself; they do not take into consideration the percentage of gun users [a high percentage] who are practical, safe, and undistracted users of these tools who also use safe practices in storage so others in a household cannot access them and actually be in the direction and range when the gun fires itself. Finally, the biggest failure of any statutory effort that aims at human behavioral control will never be 100% successful. In the case of gun control, since guns tend to not fire themselves, to expect that users of guns will always be compliant with the law is an idiotic expectation, period. That's true of any ban of anything, not just guns.

Finally, tell me what other country that these studies have included are as populated as the U.S.? Only two countries, neither of which may have been involved in the studies, are as populated as the U.S., China and India. Both countries virtually disallow the sale of guns to their citizens. Any gun. So, unless the studies develop a per capita analysis relative to populations, the data is going to be skewed.

So, is the article you posted really "the truth?" Statistically, I'd say... not.

What are you wokenesses going to do after Jan 20, 2029, when Trump is no longer around as President? Y'all have been whining for, by then, 5,457 days, since Feb 12, 2014, when Trump first tickled you that he had bigger plans than running for Gov. of New York; at the time, a suggested future for him. Can you do anything else, by then, than whine how you hate the man? What has your hate achieved? Anything of real value? Personally, my gold, then, was 1/4 of its current value, and 12x its value when I first started acquiring the stuff in the Carter admin. That, I can take to the bank, or even better, so, there's that in my ledger, for which I can thank Trump's econ policies, which are infinitely better than the commies he replaced, both times. Get a @%##%(& life.

most felonies, most impeachments, most insurrections, most lies, most sexual assaults, most corrupt, most unconstitutional...

According to whom? The swelled-head media, which was first swollen in 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution, which noted the press as the only private industry given mention in said document, and has been continuing to swell ever since? Great achievement. Rotten source of valid info, getting worse every day.

Accusations mean nothing.

Trump has one felony conviction, and that one is on hold, and likely to be vacated for its misuse of American justice.

Impeachments mean nothing without subsequent Senate conviction. So what?

Insurrection is a specific crime, for which no one on Jan 6 received a felony conviction for it. So, what insurrection?

According to Psychology Today, most people lie 20 times daily, which, over a four year period, is more lies than Trump was accused of telling during his first term. So, that's an invalid accusation, as well.

Trump has zero convictions for sexual assault, a felony. Trump was found liable in a civil suit, which is not a criminal action, but only requiring a fine, which is currently under appeal.

What, legally, is "corruption?" Another meaningless accusation without factual testimony in court.

When, exactly, has Trump been accused, let alone tried and convicted of "unconstitutional?"

Get your facts straight and stop woke whining. It's really old news. Get a life.

Education in America requires dedicated involvement of a student. Thise who do not actively participate end their formal education as illiterates. That's on them. I was educated in a blue state and a red state. Both were CA. My education satisfied me, but I was an active participant.

again, show me the trial which accused Trump off pedophelia, and it's conviction for same. Until you can demonstrate that, calling him either a criminal or a pegophile is erroneous rumor only. Get it?

13 is still a minor in virtually every state if not all. And what of Biden, who has meddled in the space of 13-year olds... yes?

You don't think speech is already legally restricted?

I think personal restriction is n necessary when what is said just isn't true, such as referring to Trump's :"crimes" when the only con fiction he has is on hold, and is likely to be vacated. And he has never been charged with either pedophelia or rape, but is alleged to have committed both crimes. That needs to stop.

Age may contribute, but is not direct and singular cause of dementia [progressive decline of mental ability], else everyone who is in excess of [what age is it when dementia occurs? [and what age is that?] I ask, because I happened to be in Delaware from April to mid-August in 1973 when Biden first entered the Senate, and endured many reported instances, and observed for myself live, in person, at a couple of his live speaking engagements in Wilmington, the dementia of Joe Biden at 30 years of age. My conclusion, then, at 24: this guy is whacked up the side of the head. Essentially harmless, because I considered he would have no significant role. I never thought he did, even as of 2021.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/26/us-news/read-whcd-gunman-cole-allens-full-anti-trump-manifesto/

Cole Allen, the latest attempted [and failed] shooter, who was specifically targeting President Trump, along with others in the administration at the WHCD dinner, is just another loser, the third to attempt assassination of president Trump, which now means more people have trierdf to assassinate than have managed to try to impeach. Failure has a way of spreading around, and it is, therefore, a contagion.

"I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes," he wrote in his Manifesto. Typical whacko Democrat banter, being inconsiderate in chronic, severe miscalculation of the truth. Trump has not been tried or convicted of the crimes of pedophilia, rape, or treason. As for "coating [his] hands with his [Trump's 'crimes,'" since TRu7mp has not been charged, tried, nor convicted for those crimes, the allegation is a baseless as someDemocrats have ben since 2014, fr4om which time many Democrats have been after stripping Trump of his hide, removing his head, or attempting, and failing to assassinate him. For what? Well, as Trump has not been convicted of any crime [the conviction in NY Court is on hold for appeal, and this observer predicts the conviction will be vacated for failure of proper prosecutorial procedure, if nothing else.The civil trial Trump endured, assumed to be, and claimed to be for rape, because rape is a criminal action, was really a civil trial; he was found "liable," not "convicted," and therefore, his punishment is strictly a fine, not jail. People who do not understand these distinctions in the law ought to shut up; they know nothing of their accusations, and thus render themselves undeserving of their blue-state superior education.

As I read the constitutional qualifications to fill the Office of the President [Article II, Section 1, clause 5] which qual, exactly, is Trump failing to meet? Pls specify. It's not that complicated of a list. And, it's in English, so that should not be misunderstood.

And yes, Biden met them, too, but failed at just about every expectation of the following sections pf Article II while "serving." Now, if you want to question Trump's performance, speak to that, but he met the constitutional qualifications to be elected, thank you.

My proopsal is that crass-mouth Democrats shut their fucking mouths, because it is not in the effort to make "a more perfect union," but to sew sufficient discord to encourage whackos to target Trump. Trouble is, the Democrat effort to ban guns is affecting their sycophant whackos' aim. Democrats encourage people who haven't a fuckoing clue how to use their weapons. They keep missing their target. You would think Democrats would either choose better-skilled people, educated in those superior blue states, or do it themselves. Just what the fuck do they want?

Apologies for my rare profanity, but I'm royally pissed. Enough is enough.

Oh? You mean like words spoken in late 2014 by Trump, before he issued public notice that he was thinking of running, because the rhetoric of some Dems arguing against Trump began, then, in 2014. Hint: he was not the president, and not even a candidate, therefore, his freedom of speech allowance was being violated. And then there's the WaPo article published the morning of Trump's inauguration, 2017, announcing his "Impeachment had begun" when all the president had done or said that morning as President was to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue hand-in-hand with his wife after inauguration. Tell me what "high crimes and misdemeanors" were committed, according to WaPo?

President Trump is now the most frequently targeted president in the history of the United States. That is not a stat to be proud to document. The rhetoric of some Democrats is obviously inspiring whackos to act on impulse, justifying only that some people have absolutely no control of themselves, willing to let others trigger them. That, as well, is a sad stat. It points to, on one respect, the asinine idea of gun control, because it is obvious that the first result of that legal, statutory effort is that only whackos will end up with guns to use. Tell me how that improves our society?

Second, the vocal Democrats inspiring would-be assassins need to settle down and do their hired, elected job, like passing reasonable legislation, instead of targeting others in government with whom they disagree.

What is threatening to Democracy much more than MAGA is alleged to be is Democrat or Republican rhetoric that is not aimed at achieving "a more perfect union."

After roughly nine months of DC, we still lack CofCs and debate and voting rules.

I am not in communication with Israelis [they are more than just Jews, my friend]; not a single one. You will recall, just as with Ishmaelites [Abraham's first son, Ishmael, with Hagar, Sarah's handmaiden, who did not obtain his birthright], Israelites are more than just the House of Judah, but eleven other tribes, as well. Learn some legit history. It's all in the Bible, which, as I have maintained many times, needs to be read cover-to-cover; every word. Then read more, from other sources, such as the Quran, cover-to-cover. You might read Josephus, who covers Israelite history from creation to the Roman Empire. Try A History of the Middle East: From Antiquity to the Present Day by Georges Corm, for example, a perspective of a Lebanese historian and economist. Then, you may have some background to discuss the Middle East.

Then Bible cannot be the infallible word of God

That is correct, mainly because God, Himself, wrote nary a word of it, and more particularly did not translate from original documents, not written by God, into the variety of languages in which it exists, today, and particularly when virtually none f those languages shares a lexicon [word list] with another language, which onlthe would have been able to accomplish infallibly.

Since God did none of these things, the HolyBible, though containing valuable information, is not, in its present form, infallible.

Fortunately, God has provided the means to discover what should have been said therein. Ask Him. James 1 [the entire chapter] describes the process, which must be followed without variation. Doubt will accomplish nothing. Skepticism will accomplish nothing,

ideas are introduced as unquestionable truth

Depends. I am encouraged to, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "question everything." Everything about my religion is open to question, else what you claim is the result. It is not my result.

 It tells a child they enter life already wrong. 

"Original sin" is not an accepted doctrine in my religion, being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded and centered upon Jesus Christ, who atoned for all sin, suffering, and disappointment, including the transgression of Adam & Eve, conditional upon their repentance. To deny them forgiveness, and to saddle each person born with "original sin" is nothing but denial of the atonement of Christ, and we are not authorized to decide for them [A&E] if they are forgiven. We are commanded to forgive, and that includes them, or we endanger our own forgiveness.

It frames violence as moral necessity.

No, my religion does not accept such as "moral necessity.". I rely on the biblical injunction to "love [our] enemies," which would deny violence by unwarranted aggression, though there is righteous indignation that must, if aggressed upon, respond to defeat aggression. Love must be, in circumstance, "tough."

It suppresses independent thought.

I'll close on this one, because all else rests on the foundation of individual thought as opposed to universal imposition. There latter is the devil's footstool; it is he who desires our communal thought, our aggression, our self-origin of sin, and all others. The glory of God is intelligence, not ignorance, which is what communal thought imposed really ends up being. If there is communal thought, it is thinking was Christ, and his Father, and the Holy Spirit think. That are the ultimate community, being perfect.

.

There is no perfect book in existence, but what is truth anywhere, including within the Bible, is truth, period. Truth can be found anywhere, it merely needs to be uncovered, cleaned of debris, and allowed to shine. Truth is the "more" in Madison's Preamble to the Constitution claim, the achievement of "...a more perfect union."

As of today, I present a new avatar, keeping the same elements, but a change of detail in the color stripes, keeping my attachment to my French ancestry, and the frog, but also acknowledging my American longevity [since 1625].

My #18 reference to "...2023 rally attendees counted in the tens..." should have been "2020 really..."

Sorry for the typo. No election in 2023. No president, then, either, but in name, only, and that is sorrowful.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy is remarkable.

Show me the law that forbids ids questioning the results of an election. Show me that, please. I want to see the verbiage that disallows questioning election results. If you cannot [and you cannot, I know, already such statutory language does not exist] there is no "intellectual dishonesty" by Trump. He did not advocate dismissing the Constitution in the tweet you cited; he said that a fraudulent election [he believes it was, and is legally allowed to have and express that opinion by the 1A] can allow the constitutional language to be terminated by preference for fraud. Big difference from what Oba'a said.

Considering that Biden had 2023 rally attendees counted in the tens [remember his covid circles six-feet apart?], while Trump's [with no circles] were in tens of thousands, I question how Biden allegedly won.